Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Nev1

815:

Jza84 has also been very influential, although our paths crossed long before he became an admin, and while he carries out his administrative duties, he has not neglected article writing, something I would aim to emulate. As someone who hangs around WP:GA keeping an eye on articles I've nominated (and very occasionally reviewing some) it's been difficult not to notice editors such as TonyTheTiger; although we've never talked, his prolific output is admirable. Members of the wikiprojects I'm part of are enthusiastic and willing to help, something every wikipedian should aspire to, especially admins. And of course Rudget, who carries out his admin duties admirably and takes an active part in the community, particularly writing for the signpost. There are of course many others, but I think I might be drifting from the point of the question.

852:. We all bashed the article around for a while trying to improve it. It was promoted to GA, demoted and then promoted again, before being turned down at FAC three times. I learned the hard way what wikipedia required of its articles and its editors. I learned a lot from the experience, as I'm sure did the others involved, about writing, sourcing, and general policy and now find it much easier to write articles. And having been not entirely happy with the article (it's remained almost unchanged since the last failed FAC over a year ago) I've started rewriting it and have found it to be so much easier than last time, showing how much I've changed. 4100:. Great article work, which really counts for a lot, excellent attitude and civility. But, as pointed above, almost no experience in admin-related areas. I certainly trust this user not to abuse the tools, but he may unintentionally misapply them. Right now there is too little basis for judging how well the candidate understands the policies that require admin actions and the answers to the questions are a bit wobbly in this regard. E.g. even the answer to Q8, while ultimately correct, is a bit off. Permanent settlements are generally considered inherently notable, once basic 3072:). On wikipedia, I personally think that article writing is a great way to produce trust, assuming that you do it a lot and that you don't get into troubles with it. Sure, articles aren't the drama pages, but if you spend years making significant contributions to articles you are bound to get into content disputes and issues over reverts. Handling those professionally provides experience that AIV/AfD/etc can't provide. So I can see where you are coming from but I definitely feel that article work points to trust (assuming that work doesn't result in problems). 2855:-Finally a candidate who is actually an encyclopedia contributor. Personally I don't see this editor's perceived lack of experience in the admin space is a flaw, it many ways this removes any suspicions I would have that he would abuse the tools. I'm sure if presented with a situation he would use the tools responsibly and if there are any grey areas of admin policy I'm sure he can quickly learn once he is under an obligation to act as an admin, even if he doesn't spend much of his time with admin stuff. 2122:. I thought I had already participated in this one, but I must have been interrupted and/or distracted in some way when I was looking this RFA over. Anyway, I'm going to have to give only a weak support because of the somewhat "lacking-ness" in experience in the project space. However, I think you have demonstrated the elusive and really subjective "clue"; you've got a handle on how everything runs around here. Should make a fine administrator, just don't jump into anything too hurriedly. 3589:- Need to be pensive here. This user obviously demonstrates sublime editorial work, but nary any experience in the project space. This is usually a red flag, large or small. I also get a little wary when someone says they wish to use the tools in their favorite Wikiproject. I need to really think this one through, and trust Rudget's judgment to the fullest, so there's another facet to consider. I shall return to this discussion. 190: 181: 172: 163: 1929:- After riding the fence for a while and revisiting this discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the outstanding work in the mainspace is conclusively a net positive for the project if the candidate were to receive the bit. I still retain my earlier reservations about Wikiproject tool usage, but I don't think the user will go around pushing any project agenda. Mr. IP's comments were also very very insightful bravo. 289: 280: 271: 262: 253: 244: 235: 226: 217: 208: 199: 1874:

request if you were in this position however, though any admin worth their salt would come to this very conclusion. Take your time, before using your new tools, (especially the block) make sure you are confident in the applicable guidelines, and ensure that you take the time to consult with other, more experienced admins and editors when your not 100% sure. I recon you'll make an excellent admin. -

1340:. Nev1 is an excellent contributor and has demonstrated a well-considered, pragmatic approach to editing; I have no reason to doubt that this would continue were he to be given the tools. We really could do with more admins, like Nev1, who know their own weaknesses and are prepared to assess a situation before jumping in. The answers he has given to the questions are exemplary. 2345:- I haven't really dug deep and researched this user, but here are my reasons for supporting - Number one, I've seen Rudget around and he seems like a good user, so if he nominated this user, that must be a good sign. Two, the supports in my opinion outweigh the opposes and neutrals greatly, so I will support as well. Cheers - 3771:— admins should not decline unblocks from blocks they placed, and I would hope they would try to reform vandals when they do show a glimmer of hope as the hypothetical vandal did at 11:18. However, I believe the candidate has misread the scenario because they didn't serve the 5 day block, so I'll just remain neutral for now. – 473:. It started off as a curiosity, I wondered how many (if any) there were in my local area. There was no article or list available but I was able to compile one myself; before I realised it I had a complete list, one I hope to be as interesting to readers as it was for me writing it. In the process of producing an example of " 448:. It is satisfying to build a network of contacts with people interested in improving wikipedia through contributions to articles you're all interested in. Different articles required different skills, being able to co-operate with other editors, sift through information, and assess sources for reliability. 124:, I have discovered a multitude of talents that make him perfectly suited for such a task as being an administrator. Nev1 has been an active participant mainly in the discussion of articles and other affiliated content types relating to the WikiProject I mentioned earlier, but he's also played roles in the 4104:

requirements are met, and articles about them are, as far as I know, never deleted (speedy or not). While it may be unfair to judge the candiadte on deletion-related questions since he states that he does not intend to be active in closing AfDs early on, I still do not get enough of a feeling of this

2691:

Much as I think Rudget's a great guy and all, you know, I'd prefer not to see either supports or opposes based on who the nominator is, rather than who the candidate is. BTW, please, don't anyone give me the old BS about bureacrat discretion to ignore !votes. This is a vote except in very constrained

899:

What would you do if someone showed you about an AFD where there was no consensus so there should be default to keep but the adminstrator deleted it? What if DRV didn't address the issue? Is that the end of the game, tough luck? Certainly, ArbCom is not the body to go to. Or is it permissible for

693:

G7 is that only editor to the article has requested it to be deleted. The first thing I did was look at the article. There should be plenty of material that could be added to it, I actually started looking for some. I'd ask the user who wants the article deleted why they've made this decision and try

3718:

My credibility in this forum is perhaps not at its apogee right now, but FWIW, I look on this type of candidate as sort of a reserve admin. They spend their days quietly and usefully pottering about in their specialized area of interest, breaking out the tools only to perform basic tasks. However,

3117:

Um... I guess Protonk pretty much defended my Oppose for me. To me, being able to write articles is a unique quality, and I admire it. For that reason I respect Nev1. But, I don't trust him to use admin tools. Without seeing him getting into the groove and experiencing admin area-tasks, I don't know

1703:

Apart from having faith in Rudget's nominations, I think this editor does great work. As xeno points out in the opposes, you cannot know all there is to adminship when RfAing - you will learn with time. I have great faith, that Nev1 will be responsible enough to learn all he needs to know and not go

645:

Well, what I go by is the "must appear in reliable third party sources" bit. Without reliable third party sources it's impossible to write a good quality, neutral, and most importantly verifiable article. A rule of thumb I use is if it's on a reliable website (such as the BBC), or in a newspaper, or

418:

watchlist were vandalised and there was little I could do to stop it. Anonymous editors were vandalising one article in particular faster than I could revert it; with the prospect of continuous vandalism for a an unknown period of time, the obvious step was to semi-protect the page which I suggested

391:

already ably does, helping with the simple tasks that may take up the time of other, more experienced admins. Semi-protecting articles would be useful, especially when particular articles are subject to unusually high levels of vandalism due to a mention in the media. It also seems to me that a good

300:

In terms of discussion and communication with other users, he has shown great aptitude for wishing to work with others effectively to promote Knowledge's general state of articles. He is clearly a civil user with a block log free from any blocks. Some good examples of where he has shown these skills

3268:

as per the response to Xeno's question, as it indicates a lack of policy knowledge in an important admin area. The blocking administrator should never be the one to deny an unblock request; one should always seek a secondary opinion for an unblock. Also, is it too much to offer a {{second chance}}?

2308:

I find Nev1 to be at least as trustworthy as other administrators who I do not think should be relieved of the tools, and so it would be inconsistent of me to oppose on this basis. However, there are many other much more positive aspects to his editing, many of which have been mentioned above, that

814:

Some of the users I've been most influenced by are not admins, or at least the reason for their influence has not been their ownership of the tools. For instance I greatly respect Malleus Fatuorum's article writing ability and the opinions he voices which always have the good of wikipedia at heart.

599:

The user is clearly abusive and I'm not convinced that they wouldn't continue to vandalise wikipedia. He continued vandalising even after a 5 day block, after which I would have hoped that he'd get bored or start constructively editing. After multiple warnings and one block, their behaviour doesn't

1769:

An editor who has done fine work in mainspace and proven both trustworthiness and civility has asked that he be granted the tools for a small and localized but very real set of uses. I cannot think of any reason to oppose. If Nev1 should eventually expand into other areas of administrative work,

3145:

admirable IMHO. As Jimbo says himself, adminship ain't a big deal - indeed I usually only use the buttons for deleting images I've moved to commons. I trust Nev1 is capable of that!... Infact, I think this comment of mine is applicable to all the opposition below that is based on fear/reluctance.

1873:

You seem to be a thoughtful user, clearly a good article contributor. I would like you to get more admin-area experience. By your answer to the block question, I would normally not support, but you demontrated some good thoughtful consideration. I would urge you to let another admin consider this

382:

I don't intend to go around closing AfDs, at least not right away; that's not where my experience lies, I spend a lot of time writing articles. In time I will probably participate more in AfD debates and such like, but since I'm aware I have limited experience of those areas I would walk before I

493:

None stick in my mind, but if ever an editor causes me aggravation I take time to stop and assess the situation. It's sometimes easy to misconstrue what a person means and when you can't see the look on their face or hear the tone of their voice you can sometimes see confrontation where there is

3375:

I was attempting to point out - very poorly, and I apologise for the harshness, it was unnecessary - that the idea of "oh, I knew it so I thought everybody else did" is really bad. It's important to remember that nobody comes with fully formed knowledge of every arcane Knowledge policy and not

2755:

I agree with the essence of what Malleus is saying: judge the candidate, not the nominator. But sometimes it is tempting to say "per this user" because they have made the point you would like to and done so better than you could. That said, is anyone else as confused as I am by the "oppose per

4011:

Obviously I thought they'd already been given a five day ban, I thought that if the first day ban hadn't worked then shortening the second one wouldn't serve any purpose. It seems quite clear now that the correct thing to do would be to ask another admin to intervene to maintain objectivity.

3902:

So I discovered. PS: "How do reach your level (admin?)" (so that I can start vandalising again?). Have you heard the probably apocryphal story about the Chinese diplomat on a visit to France a few years ago who, when asked for his opinion of the French Revolution, replied "Too soon to tell"?

3682:

that means I am partially forced to reconsider my stance on administrators using the tools in their respective topic areas given the applicants intentions. But, please remember that I am in the neutral section, and that my earlier comments regarding this potential COI issue was not the

1410:. I would go neutral or even oppose based on lack of experience in core areas, but I was swayed over to the support side. What influenced me the most was that I can see you want the tools to help out, not to simply have them. Plus (though this is to a lesser extent), I trust Rudget. 1169:

without reservation. Nev1 is a sensible and hard-working editor who clearly has wikipedia's best interests at heart. His replies to the standard questions demonstrate that he would not rush in to unfamiliar areas once granted the extra buttons, but would feel his way into his new role.

1485:

We are here to determine if we can trust the user with the tools. The article writing shows we can. The rules come from common sense and the contribution to the encyclopedia show trust; trust that the user will use his/her best common sense on Knowledge. That is all you need:

650:", while I agree this is useful I don't think it's be all and end all since wikipedia is trying to be more comprehensive than other encyclopaedias. Also there would be nothing on castles in Greater Manchester even though there are reliable etc sources available on the subject. 443:

As Rudget mentioned in his nominating statement, I've been involved in a few featured articles which technically are the best wikipedia has to offer. That said, not every article can be featured, and I feel I do a lot of good work, mainly within WP:GM; although I am trying to

1726:. If you are smart enough to write excellent articles, you can handle being an admin. Being a good article writer requires a far higher level of competence than being an admin, which is really not that difficult if you are a) sane and b) not a moron. Meets both a) and b). 3652:

need to reconsider your no-admin-work-in-area-of-interest stance. There are several admins that use the tools to clean up their "favorite wikiproject", and there's nothing inherently wrong with using the tools to do so. In fact, I think that many of the Wikiprojects would

3136:

I doubt I'll convince you at this point, and I respect your opinion, but (from where I am coming from) I feel the need to point out article building and project work is exactly the right place where one builds trust within the community. To do so much content building and

584:

As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very

4080:

the user has a high level of clue, but, as the user has participated in actions involving protection deletion and blocking at an almost non-existent level I really have no way to feel confident that the user would really know how to use the tools correctly. -

494:

none. When interacting with other wikipedians I make an effort (hopefully successful) to ensure I'm not misunderstood. The easiest way to deal with someone who stresses you out is to walk away and relax, then approach the situation again with a clear head.

628:

I intend to, I believe accountability is important. Too many editors consider adminship to be a badge of immunity, which should not be the case. I've not yet considered what the conditions of my AOR would be, but I shall think consider what they could

537:

was the target of some malicious and malignant vandalism, anonymous users were inserting POV persistantly. After considering the options open I decided that banning IP addresses would be inappropriate as they seemed to be changing regularly, instead I

880:

a bad idea and someone will get burned. People are often annoyed by being blocked, so blocking someone to get them to calm down just doesn't make sense to me. If an editor should back away from an argument because it's getting too heated, tell them

3086:

Exactly what I was thinking. Nev1 knows policy and is able to work well with others on a number of projects (not just articles) so that really is a good determining factor were you in doubt of the user's ability to conduct the tools effectively.

2616:- great temperament, seems very respectful and civil, all very important traits for an administrator. I'm confident that if there are adminy things that he doesn't know about, he won't hesitate to read the appropriate guidelines/policy. -- 1587:

Has the right skills (writes articles), does excellent work. As per "not enough admin-type work/trust", if he was at ANI or AIV or whatever, we would be screaming that he wants it too much...Nev1, please keep doing wht you are doing.

3719:

if needed, they will heed the call — and though they may theoretically lack wider admin experience, they apply the same quiet diligence and strong character in new areas as they did in old ones, learning quickly and well. I think of

1324:

levelheaded, mature, polite, gets what the site is about, great contributor. Lack of playing in admin areas is not of much concern. Nev1 appears the sort of editor who will be cautious as an admin, and not make mistakes twice. -

325:

I am very much glad and appreciative that Nev1 decided to accept the offer and I wish now the community can now promote a user who is so good with articles that it is clear Knowledge will benefit if he is given the admin bit.

1361:

the tools as he's not particularly active in admin-related areas. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that he can be trusted with them and, even if he only uses the mop and bucket sparingly, Knowledge will be better off.

550:. It turned out to be a bit pointless as the editor was already blocked, but before reporting the user I reviewed all the criteria for blocking to make sure I was in the right. I also have taken part in discussion about 3539:

Oh, now 284 edits to the Knowledge namespace is considered low? Sheesh. And you're actually asserting that Nev1 doen't know about policy because he has so-and-so amounts of edits to a specific namespace? --I'm an

3917:

A little harsh, maybe, considering that the user in question is a rollbacker with over a thousand edits? Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting your response (a crime of which I have been guilty before :D). Erik the

3029:— Great article work ≠ Trust. — I don't see anything that makes me think you would use the tools responsibly. Nor do I know how to spell "responsibley", which probably cut down the seriousness of this oppose 839:

You mean apart from answering question 5 wrong ;-) I don't know really, there haven't been any horrendous mistakes. If I may adapt your question, I learned most about wikipedia when I first tried to promote

698:

case I'd ask if they minded if I tried expanding the article since it would seem a waste of an article with potential, however I obviously couldn't do this all the time. So I suppose I wouldn't speedy it.

3353:"Especially when around newbies" I'm afraid I don't understand that part. Also, that previous phrase should be rewritten. "I've pretty much always known about 2nd chance since I started stalking WP:RfA." 3067:

He certainly has a point in a general sense. Trust isn't transitive (to borrow a phrase). We trust airline pilots to fly planes, it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be trusted with firearms

891:

What is your opinion on secret chat rooms between administrators that is not accessible to others. Why is such secret communication permitted? Is it possible that such secret channels create abuse?

2719:

It's ambiguous, I agree. So let me be clearer about my own statement. I'd prefer not see either supports or opposes based on who the nominator is or what the nominator may or may not have said. --

2784:

Or perhaps just a simple error. All it took was a post to Asenine's talkpage to clarify, as he did below. He had misread Oppose #1 as coming from Rudget (couldn't see Kojidude's signature).

1984:

I do not always support candidates with limited, roles, but the article writing strikes me as sufficient indication that he will be responsible and properly cautious in his use of the tools.

3291:

In the candidate's defense, I didn't learn of 2nd chance until a month into my adminship. I gather my question and my responses to it have greatly increased the awareness of this template. –

3051:

I know this'll lead to some discussion and I'm sure its on others minds (going by the neutral below), but what would lead you to trust the candidate? And you spelt responsibly correctly. :)

2485:- He's a decent guy. Good temperament. My recent interaction with him showed a cool, calm and collected sort of person. Knows his manners, which is always a good sign in someone. Good luck! 3103:

But to be fair to the oppose, it is a legitimate claim to say that trust in wikipedia isn't transitive and that the only thing that builds an admin record is work in admin related areas.

557:

I hope that while this demonstrates I have a limited involvement in admin areas at the moment, I have thought about the actions I am taking and acting responsibly when getting involved.

551: 530: 137: 321:. The first one in particular impressed me somewhat since its not too often we see others thanking reviewers for the time they put into evaluating the articles we've contributed to. 3069: 3183:

Great article work, but not enough admin-area work to demonstrate a comprehensive enough grasp of policy. Answer to Xeno's question pretty much sealed the deal for me. Erik the

3313:

Really? I've pretty much always known about it, so I assume everyone had, so guess I'll tailor my votes in the future to reflect the fact that not everyone does know about it.

369:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

160:

others projects noticeboards with notifications. Aside from the housekeeping tasks, his mainspace contributions are outstanding (they are listed in no particular order):

2525:

Great article work (we are here to build an encyclopedia, something people often forget), and I see no reason not to trust this user. Good answers to questions as well.

1649:

per nom. Hard-working editor with admirable writing accomplishments. Agree with Xeno that answer to Q4 isn't very good, but a close reading of block policy will do. --

487:

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?

1854:

I'm happy to say I have nothing to do with Nev2 (I didn't even know he existed until 5 minutes ago). If anyone doubts this, I am quite happy to undergo a check user.

529:

I freely admit my experience of admin areas is limited, and certainly no where near as extensive as some editors would prefer. I have nominated a group of articles

1635:, something this project has very little of and with lots of article work we have more than just another run of the mill anti-vandal only candidate. Best of luck, 1431:

due to barnstars and good articles indicated on userpage and in nomination above. User is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia and gets along with others. --

600:

seem to have changed, one relatively constructive edit does not make up for his previous acts. Taking this into account, I would deny their request for an unblock.

453: 184: 3231:

Maybe I have different votes on the two RfA's because they are two different candidates, on two different RfA's. I don't see the point to your comment. Erik the

1963:. A good candidate, who would clearly use admin tools sensibly. His experience in article building, maintaining, and involvement in the GA/FA/DYK are excellent. 2410:

More than sufficent clue level demonstrated from contributions and answers to (most of) the questions allay the valid concerns presented in Oppose / Neutral.

3678:

I understand Dean, but at the moment I'm really trying to focus on this candidate in particular (mostly with regards to the project space in general), and I

3335:

I sincerely hope you realise what's wrong with what you've just said and try and be more careful about similar assumptions, especially when around newbies.

900:

the original author to recreate the article in a few months with improvements (though there were no accusations of poor editorial quality in the beginning).

2809: 2681: 3376:

everybody lurks around RfA, and even when running for RfA, you can't be expected to know everything. For newbies it's especially important to be careful (

4147: 4129: 1118:

for supporting an admin candidate, and the fact that experience in the traditional "admin-related areas" of Knowledge is somewhat overrated in my view.

3975:

Ah fair enough, I misread the five day break in the middle as a five day block. It's a bit late to change my answer, but this is a learning process.

140:). Nev1 does not particularly work extensively within project (in this context I mean Knowledge) noticeboards, but he does have some experience with 945: 1296: 1770:

there is every reason to think that he will apply the diligence and seriousness there that he has applied elsewhere, and will pose no problems.

2804: 2676: 804: 2233: 3658: 3543: 3441:

Sorry, I misread the first oppose as coming from Rudget as the screen I am using made it hard to read the opposer's signature. Per oppose 1.

3211: 2907: 1841:. Good editor, good answers to questions, mature. He's a good article writer, and that's harder than admin stuff. If he's the same person as 1119: 4067: 3933: 3410: 3365: 3325: 3281: 3246: 3198: 769: 737: 111:

for adminship. He has contributed steadily since October 2006 – making more extended and developed content additions since then, amassing

1210:

did not dig deep enough to offer a full support, or Rudget did not? Either way, those are silly reasons to change the support to weak :P

2803:

My !vote was because was because of the nomination. All of the reasons in the nomination gave me more than enough reasons to support.--

3793:

Interesting story, but it needs an ending. Did the vandal reform or not? That's surely the only way to tell who's "right" isn't it? --

2207:: Brilliant articles.... and will make a good admin. He also seems to be able to listen to overs which some admin don't seem to do. 1434: 1251:- trustworthy editor. Good answer to Q1; think he'll be ok at semi-protecting pages, and closing articles for deletion discussions. 932: 801:

Are there any specific administrators whom you consider particularly influential and/or especially good Knowledge role models? Why?

88: 2631:

The project will benefit from this editor's access to extra buttons. I have no reason for concern about misuse of tool. Good luck.

1036:- No problems here; looks like a very good editor, clear block log. Seems to have a good understanding of policies and guidelines. 4105:

user having sufficiently solid understanding of WP policies and procedures that I would want to see in an admin (even a new one).

4034: 33: 17: 3210:

It's interesting to me that you chose to support Mr IP, but you choose to oppose this candidate. Color me completely confused.

2770:

Tit-for-tat from someone who doesn't like Rudget? The revenge-fest aspect to RfA is one of its many less endearing features. --

2533: 1917: 1115: 546:. I also reported a newly created account – which was created specifically to vandalise the Mitch Benn article – for having an 125: 975: 3707: 3637: 3609: 3129: 3044: 2590: 1949: 969: 396:

as I've tagged a few images I've uploaded for deletion and have experienced a delay when there really doesn't need to be one.

3389: 3344: 1675: 470: 211: 193: 646:

there's an academic book on it, it's notable. A good question to ask is also "would this appear in an encyclopaedia such

2641: 1222: 1187:

Looks good on a surface level and I have faith in Rudget. But didn't dig deep enough to give more than weak support.---

939: 120:

Moving on the specifics of the candidate, in the few months that I've known Nev1, that is through the well-established

1500: 1457: 1291: 3571:

A quiet and civil user, and a dedicated article writer, but his admin-related experience is very weak at the moment.

2455: 844:

to GA status. Back in 2007 this was an article on which three fairly inexperienced editors cut their teeth: myself,

3950: 3908: 3864: 3834: 3798: 3754:

With regret -- as much as I love content creators, I cannot overlook the candidate's lack of admin-related duties.

3507: 2775: 2724: 2706:

Just my opinion, I think he was referring to what Rudget said about Nev1, rather than Rudget being the nominator -

2697: 2526: 1687:. Fine contributor, clearly cares about the project & so no reason to presume he would run amok with the mop. 1175: 1151: 1059: 992: 925: 647: 82: 3458:

Forgive me for asking but Rudget was the nominator and he supports. So how exactly do you base an oppose on that?

2229: 2212: 1097:

Writes articles. Knows limitations. He doesn't need to lurk moar around AfD for months to get the mop and bucket.

3549: 2913: 2163: 4063: 3927: 3668: 3477:

This is still outstanding, thus I'm also noting that I'm not happy with this as a reason to oppose Nev1's RFA.

3444: 3406: 3361: 3321: 3277: 3240: 3221: 3192: 2710: 2349: 1129: 841: 763: 731: 238: 189: 180: 171: 162: 533:

on grounds of non-notability; the result was deleted for the reasons I nominated it. Recently, the article on

3398:

Oh, that's OK. Now that we've forgiven each other, let's just drop the matter. But thank you for the advice.

3844: 3530: 2856: 2512: 2411: 2381: 474: 393: 3829:

You'll have to excuse my natural cynicism, but why can I find no user contributions for that IP address? --

870:

What's your stance on cool down blocks? I know the obvious answer is no, but can you dig deeper than that?

754:

What is the difference between a block and a ban? When, and by whom, should each be administered? Erik the

3945:

Mine in particular, or generally? I'm simply saying that time will tell, I see nothing "harsh" in that. --

3663: 3216: 2963: 2790: 2742: 2655: 2567: 2194: 2051: 1825: 1801: 1575: 1286: 1124: 517: 141: 3946: 3904: 3860: 3830: 3794: 3503: 2771: 2720: 2693: 2107: 2085: 1828: 1632: 1607: 1593: 1417: 1171: 1144: 1054: 849: 94: 4128:

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

1756: 3266:

Changing to neutral on account that the user should only be using his admin powers in his Wikiproject.

3093: 3057: 2460: 2225: 2208: 1023: 332: 3759: 3546: 2910: 2891: 2884: 2269: 2250: 2221: 2157: 2064:

Despite flubbing the question, I see no serious concerns and think Nev1 will be an excellent sysop.--

2038: 1971: 1256: 1234: 1196: 4056: 3999: 3919: 3890: 3851: 3817: 3781: 3688: 3618: 3590: 3399: 3354: 3314: 3301: 3270: 3232: 3184: 2707: 2365: 2346: 2331: 2317: 2144: 2099: 1930: 1636: 1557: 1329: 1211: 1081: 860: 755: 723: 608: 590: 460:

involved reading what I felt to be some very turgid prose as my main source. Sorry if I'm boasting.

301:

can be found easily in his recent contributions, but for sake of convenience I'll list some here –

2156:

Nev1 has more than 4500 edits and he is interested in building articles. He will be a good admin.

1846: 1490:, and when users contribute responsibly, I have no doubt they will use there best common sense. -- 4087: 3697: 3627: 3599: 3124: 3088: 3052: 3039: 2978: 2793: 2745: 2584: 2546: 2452:

Because the opposition has failed to demonstrate it is a non-member of the Equus asinus species,

2398: 2377: 1939: 1804: 1018: 988: 469:

It's difficult to chose, but I think the best and most most rewarding article I've worked on was

327: 100: 4026:

Just wanting to make sure the candidate understands that bans and blocks aren't the same thing.

1666:

great article writing, reasonable understanding of most admin tasks, seems sensible. of course.

4114: 4092: 4072: 4039: 4021: 4006: 3984: 3954: 3940: 3912: 3897: 3868: 3854: 3838: 3824: 3802: 3788: 3763: 3740: 3713: 3673: 3643: 3580: 3557: 3534: 3511: 3494: 3472: 3415: 3393: 3370: 3348: 3330: 3308: 3286: 3253: 3226: 3205: 3163: 3131: 3112: 3098: 3081: 3062: 3046: 3014: 2997: 2981: 2966: 2947: 2930: 2921: 2895: 2867: 2847: 2814: 2798: 2779: 2765: 2750: 2728: 2714: 2701: 2686: 2667: 2646: 2623: 2608: 2594: 2571: 2554: 2540: 2517: 2495: 2477: 2444: 2430: 2402: 2385: 2368: 2353: 2337: 2322: 2300: 2273: 2256: 2216: 2198: 2169: 2148: 2131: 2114: 2089: 2072: 2056: 2042: 2004: 1995: 1976: 1955: 1921: 1901: 1884: 1863: 1849: 1845:, though, this may be considered an oppose vote, as Nev2 was less mature than an unborn fetus. 1833: 1809: 1787: 1745: 1718: 1695: 1679: 1658: 1641: 1597: 1579: 1561: 1546: 1532: 1516: 1505: 1477: 1461: 1440: 1423: 1402: 1377: 1349: 1332: 1316: 1302: 1274: 1260: 1239: 1216: 1201: 1179: 1161: 1134: 1106: 1089: 1061: 1045: 1028: 776: 744: 711: 685: 521: 355: 337: 58: 3576: 3385: 3340: 3108: 3077: 3010: 2993: 2957: 2843: 2663: 2563: 2491: 2190: 2127: 1671: 1654: 1571: 1270: 1102: 707: 681: 513: 503: 2361:

The candidate is well equipped to assume administrative tasks cautiously and responsibly. —

3733: 2637: 2081: 2069: 2019: 1818: 1780: 1589: 1542: 1413: 1041: 3859:

Thanks. What an extraordinary transformation. Difficult to believe it's the same person. --

4110: 4027: 3755: 3487: 3466: 3156: 2943: 2877: 2439: 2423: 2288: 2265: 2244: 2034: 1965: 1712: 1512: 1496: 1474: 1453: 1395: 1252: 1227: 1189: 823: 274: 256: 129: 1053:

Record looks clean shows a sensible level of understanding of admin-related activity. --

4017: 3991: 3980: 3882: 3848: 3809: 3773: 3552: 3377: 3293: 2927: 2916: 2761: 2362: 2310: 2140: 2001: 1911: 1859: 1734: 1553: 1370: 1326: 1070: 919: 567: 512:

Great article writing. But please elaborate on your experience in admin related areas.

457: 445: 406: 351: 229: 220: 76: 3873:

Ah, yes, the IP I used is fictional (outside the range of possibility) to protect the

3525:, low level of Knowledge namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. 4141: 4083: 3119: 3034: 2974: 2785: 2737: 2580: 2471: 2395: 2178: 1991: 1897: 1796: 1345: 673: 427:. The page was eventually protected, but in the meantime there was further vandalism. 424: 415: 412: 202: 3141:

misbehave, loose his temper or even make a bad call on content/consensus is really,

2438:

User is very constructive, very trustworthy, grasps the "walk before running" idea.

3572: 3381: 3336: 3104: 3073: 3006: 2989: 2840: 2659: 2617: 2486: 2264:, seems sensible and trustworthy. Also able to admit mistakes and learn from them. 2123: 1667: 1650: 1525: 1312: 1266: 1098: 845: 703: 677: 658: 384: 265: 121: 833:

What's the worst mistake you've made on Knowledge? What did you learn from this?

4101: 3725: 3720: 3526: 2632: 2604: 2065: 2013: 1877: 1772: 1538: 1037: 791: 1265:

Even Nev1 doesn't think he's ready to close articles for deletion discussions.

554:

within WP:GM. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head I'm afraid.

456:

required a lot of repetitive and some difficult searching for sources online;

4106: 3481: 3460: 3150: 2939: 2417: 2283: 1706: 1688: 1491: 1470: 1449: 1389: 534: 388: 247: 175: 54: 4122:

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

3723:, basically. This is the type of admin we need more of. Just my two cents. 4013: 3976: 2757: 2309:

would lead me to support this nomination on their own account. So, support.

1855: 1842: 1727: 1363: 915: 409: 347: 71: 2243:

Looks fine. Solid answers to questions, good mainspace work, detailed nom.

405:

The usefulness of having the tools was drawn to my attention recently when

383:

could run. At least to begin with, I would mainly use the tools within the

3033:. :-/ That might be a good thing though, I won't get flamed as much now.-- 2205:

Support so strong that i could lift the Tower of London with the strength

1986: 1893: 1618: 1341: 477:" I enjoyed myself, which I believe is an important part of this project. 449: 283: 166: 593:

and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

1510:

Great article work = trust, plus a perfect answer to Xeno's question. —

669: 619: 292: 4132:

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

991:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 128:(where he has also demonstrated an excellent interpretation of the 3657:

from having one or more of their regulars with tools for cleanup.

3380:) - that wasn't really relevant, just a pointless tangent. Sorry. 2177:: Top-notch article contributions and stellar civility lead me to 2139:

per nom. Nev1 is a great contributor and would make a good admin.

2033:- Strong editor. I trust him to know his limits with the tools. - 1385:

per the rationale in the nomination by Rudget. Outstanding user.

2736:

Malleus' statement about the "per nom" stuff, er, per Malleus.

1795:, per Mr. IP. I couldn't have said it better, nor shall I try. 1622: 586: 452:

required combining information from a large number of sources;

1602:

That's an impressive list of work and experience in the nom!

112: 1524:

Great answer to Xenocidic's question. Great article work.--

876:

Cool down blocks seem to me like pouring petrol on a fire:

1069:; clean record and seems to know his way around policies. 859:

Optional, ubiqutous, not trying to trap you question from

1689: 346:

Thank you for your generous nomination Rudget, I accept.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2658:, great editing work, and has an interesting user page. 622:

or make yourself available to recall in some other way?

437:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

3500: 1759: 963: 957: 951: 547: 543: 539: 420: 318: 314: 310: 306: 302: 157: 153: 149: 145: 133: 106: 2810: 2682: 676:, would you delete the article or reject the request? 2955:

Long history, consistent work, no reasons to oppose.

2786: 2738: 1797: 2805: 2677: 2281:per nom, and I think he would make a fine admin. 3687:for any oppose. Thank you for the comment though. 2838:Thoughtful answers to the questions. Good luck. -- 2885: 2878: 268:(received a barnstar for 'exemplary work' here), 1552:Per Daniel and the well written nom by Rudget :) 1469:- due to many GA's and no reason not to trust -- 2505: 1909:- will probably make a better admin than I am. 394:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user 376:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 2794: 2746: 1805: 1284:per nom. Great user, would make a good admin. 1017:- Nev1 is a great candidate - per nomination. 454:Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester 185:Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester 2330:from me and the otters. Solid contributions. 154:moves pages to reflect more well-known titles 8: 668:If I were to request the speedy deletion of 423:although I should have taken it straight to 2487: 1751:per nom and other fine reasons stated above 639:Please define notability in your own words 392:place to start would be keeping an eye on 70:I am delighted to nominate and introduce 987:Please keep discussion constructive and 3118:if he can use the tools well or not.-- 1432: 7: 1892:. Nev1 will use the tools sensibly. 1448:, I see no reason to not support. -- 1114:, per having no concerns based upon 475:the best that Knowledge has to offer 288: 279: 270: 261: 252: 243: 234: 225: 216: 207: 198: 146:knows CSD tagging policy of own work 694:to encourage them to expand it. In 3499:It links in with my comment above. 1357:- I'm not entirely convinced Nev1 24: 4148:Successful requests for adminship 2904:I like article writers. --I'm an 2393:. We need more admins like Nev1. 1570:Just the kind of person we need. 1537:Doesn't act like a ten-year-old. 2414:to the project granting +sysop. 722:Optional question from Erik the 287: 278: 269: 260: 251: 242: 233: 224: 215: 206: 197: 188: 179: 170: 161: 126:good article nominations process 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3700: 3690: 3630: 3620: 3602: 3592: 2295: 2289: 2284: 1942: 1932: 573: 115:edits in that 20 month period. 3120: 3035: 2579:great 'pedia builder. Cheers, 1753:. 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ( 1526: 566: 385:Greater Manchester wikiproject 122:Greater Manchester WikiProject 1: 3125: 3040: 2465: 2461: 2292: 1488:to use your best common sense 1143: 568: 471:Castles in Greater Manchester 212:Warburton, Greater Manchester 194:Castles in Greater Manchester 134:other requests for adminships 3726: 2472: 2440: 2189:Faith) with this candidate. 1773: 1436:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 156:and has displayed diligence 3734: 3455:09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 3015:18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 2998:14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 2675:Per nomination by Rudget.-- 2503:. You're not an admin yet? 2492: 2052: 2027:23:36, 4 August 2008 (#UTC) 1781: 1433:Happy editing! Sincerely, 365:Questions for the candidate 59:19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 4164: 4115:13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 4093:05:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 4073:02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 4040:01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 4022:00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 4007:23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3989:Can't hurt to clarify =) – 3985:23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3955:23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3941:23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3913:23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3898:22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3869:11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3855:07:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3839:02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3825:23:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3803:23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3789:22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3764:20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3741:15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3714:20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3674:20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3644:20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3615:20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3581:19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3558:14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 3535:13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 3512:20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 3495:20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 3473:09:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 3416:23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3394:18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3371:18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3349:17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3331:15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3309:01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3287:00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3254:01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3227:01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3206:23:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3164:01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 3132:22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3113:21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3099:20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3082:20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3063:20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 3047:20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 2982:18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 2967:16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 2948:16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 2931:06:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 2922:02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 2896:22:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2868:21:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2848:20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2815:23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 2799:14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 2780:22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2766:22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2751:20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2729:20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2715:20:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2702:20:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2687:20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2668:16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2647:12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2624:11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2609:11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2595:10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2572:10:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2555:05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC) 2541:23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2518:15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2496:14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2478:12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2445:11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2431:08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2403:07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2386:06:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2369:04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2354:03:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 2338:23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2323:22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2301:21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2274:18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2257:16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2217:15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2199:15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2170:10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2149:07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2132:04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2115:04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2090:03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2073:01:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2057:00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2043:00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2005:23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1996:22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1977:22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1956:20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1922:19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1902:18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1885:17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1864:17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1850:17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1834:17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1810:16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1788:15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1746:09:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1719:09:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1704:round, abusing the tools. 1696:09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1680:09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1659:06:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1642:06:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1598:02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1580:02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1562:02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1547:02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1533:02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1517:01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1506:01:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1478:01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1462:23:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1441:23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1424:23:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1403:22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1378:22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1350:22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1333:21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1317:21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1303:21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1275:21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1261:21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1240:19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 1217:06:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1202:21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1180:21:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1162:21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1139:Would make a good admin. 1135:20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1107:19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1090:19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1062:19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1046:19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1029:19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 993:Special:Contributions/Nev1 777:00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 745:00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 712:23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 686:22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 522:19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 356:19:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 338:19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 53:FINAL (90/4/6); closed by 618:Will you add yourself to 540:requested semi-protection 387:(WP:GM), something which 4125:Please do not modify it. 4055:as per previous Oppose. 3735:Defender of Open Editing 1782:Defender of Open Editing 842:Sale, Greater Manchester 657:Optional questions from 607:Optional questions from 239:Sale, Greater Manchester 3070:source for my ramblings 822:Optional question from 790:Optional question from 672:article under criteria 150:reverts unsourced edits 144:users of his reverts, 142:reverting and notifying 38:Please do not modify it 2875:-Outstanding user. -- 564:Optional question from 548:inappropriate username 3807:Yes, they reformed. – 3617:Changing to Support. 2894:comment was added at 2097:great work on Lancs. 850:User:Malleus Fatuorum 589:scenario outlined at 552:articles for deletion 34:request for adminship 1817:. No problems here. 421:relevant wikiproject 132:set for reviewers), 65:Nomination by Rudget 3648:In my opinion, you 2175:Very strong support 1308:No reason to oppose 591:User:Xenocidic/RFAQ 2654:- Generally meets 2336:and his otters • 2000:Excellent editor. 995:before commenting. 39: 3939: 3709: 3704: 3639: 3634: 3611: 3606: 3493: 3454: 3252: 3204: 3162: 2898: 2692:circumstances. -- 2645: 2538: 2458: 2429: 2237: 2224:comment added by 2053:Mizu onna sango15 1975: 1951: 1946: 1763: 1757:User:Dlohcierekim 1631:- Appears to use 1504: 1401: 1156: 808: 775: 743: 504:User:Sumoeagle179 37: 4155: 4127: 4059: 4030: 4005: 4002: 3996: 3947:Malleus Fatuorum 3936: 3930: 3925: 3922: 3905:Malleus Fatuorum 3896: 3893: 3887: 3861:Malleus Fatuorum 3831:Malleus Fatuorum 3823: 3820: 3814: 3795:Malleus Fatuorum 3787: 3784: 3778: 3736: 3728: 3708: 3702: 3698: 3692: 3638: 3632: 3628: 3622: 3610: 3604: 3600: 3594: 3504:Malleus Fatuorum 3492: 3490: 3478: 3469: 3463: 3453: 3450: 3442: 3402: 3357: 3317: 3307: 3304: 3298: 3273: 3249: 3243: 3238: 3235: 3201: 3195: 3190: 3187: 3161: 3159: 3147: 3127: 3122: 3096: 3091: 3060: 3055: 3042: 3037: 2961: 2889: 2888: 2886: 2882: 2865: 2864: 2812: 2807: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2772:Malleus Fatuorum 2748: 2744: 2740: 2721:Malleus Fatuorum 2694:Malleus Fatuorum 2684: 2679: 2635: 2621: 2607: 2553:this message! - 2537: 2534: 2531: 2508: 2507: 2493: 2489: 2474: 2469: 2463: 2453: 2442: 2428: 2426: 2415: 2401: 2334: 2333:Ten Pound Hammer 2320: 2315: 2314: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2286: 2253: 2247: 2219: 2166: 2160: 2110: 2102: 2054: 1969: 1950: 1944: 1940: 1934: 1883: 1880: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1783: 1775: 1754: 1740: 1715: 1709: 1693: 1639: 1615: 1530: 1494: 1439: 1437: 1422: 1400: 1398: 1386: 1368: 1230: 1214: 1192: 1172:Malleus Fatuorum 1160: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1147:Diligent Terrier 1056:Anthony.bradbury 1026: 1021: 979: 938: 913:Links for Nev1: 908:General comments 802: 772: 766: 761: 758: 740: 734: 729: 726: 577: 575: 572: 446:branch out a bit 335: 330: 322: 296: 291: 290: 282: 281: 273: 272: 264: 263: 255: 254: 246: 245: 237: 236: 228: 227: 219: 218: 210: 209: 201: 200: 192: 183: 174: 165: 116: 110: 89:deleted contribs 4163: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4130:this nomination 4123: 4070: 4057: 4037: 4028: 4000: 3992: 3990: 3934: 3928: 3920: 3891: 3883: 3881: 3818: 3810: 3808: 3782: 3774: 3772: 3712: 3703: 3642: 3633: 3614: 3605: 3568: 3488: 3480: 3467: 3461: 3446: 3443: 3413: 3400: 3368: 3355: 3328: 3315: 3302: 3294: 3292: 3284: 3271: 3247: 3241: 3233: 3199: 3193: 3185: 3157: 3149: 3094: 3089: 3058: 3053: 3023: 2959: 2876: 2861:♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ 2858: 2857: 2756:Rudget" below? 2619: 2605:John Vandenberg 2603: 2562:will be great. 2535: 2527: 2516: 2504: 2476: 2424: 2416: 2394: 2332: 2318: 2312: 2311: 2251: 2245: 2164: 2159:Masterpiece2000 2158: 2108: 2100: 1954: 1945: 1920: 1878: 1875: 1829: 1819: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1713: 1707: 1637: 1608: 1435: 1411: 1396: 1388: 1374: 1364: 1355:Weakish support 1228: 1221:See my essay on 1212: 1190: 1152: 1145: 1024: 1019: 1011: 1002: 931: 914: 910: 792:John Vandenberg 770: 764: 756: 738: 732: 724: 367: 333: 328: 299: 257:City of Salford 136:and some AfDs ( 119: 74: 69: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4161: 4159: 4151: 4150: 4140: 4139: 4135: 4134: 4118: 4117: 4095: 4075: 4068: 4058:NuclearWarfare 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4033: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3880:reformed. =) – 3766: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3699: 3695: 3646: 3629: 3625: 3601: 3597: 3567: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3411: 3401:NuclearWarfare 3366: 3356:NuclearWarfare 3326: 3316:NuclearWarfare 3282: 3272:NuclearWarfare 3258: 3257: 3256: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3000: 2984: 2969: 2950: 2933: 2924: 2899: 2873:Strong Support 2870: 2850: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2670: 2649: 2626: 2611: 2597: 2574: 2557: 2543: 2523:Strong Support 2520: 2510: 2498: 2480: 2470: 2447: 2433: 2405: 2388: 2378:Richard Cavell 2371: 2356: 2340: 2325: 2303: 2276: 2259: 2238: 2201: 2172: 2151: 2134: 2117: 2095:Strong support 2092: 2075: 2059: 2050:. Certainly. — 2045: 2028: 2007: 1998: 1979: 1958: 1941: 1937: 1924: 1916: 1904: 1887: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1836: 1812: 1790: 1767:Strong support 1764: 1748: 1737: 1736: 1721: 1698: 1682: 1661: 1644: 1626: 1600: 1582: 1565: 1549: 1535: 1519: 1508: 1480: 1464: 1443: 1426: 1405: 1383:Strong support 1380: 1372: 1352: 1335: 1319: 1305: 1299: 1294: 1289: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1182: 1164: 1137: 1109: 1092: 1064: 1048: 1031: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1001: 998: 984: 983: 982: 980: 909: 906: 904: 902: 901: 893: 892: 885: 884: 883: 882: 861:CountyLemonade 856: 855: 854: 853: 819: 818: 817: 816: 787: 786: 785: 784: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 654: 653: 652: 651: 633: 632: 631: 630: 609:NuclearWarfare 604: 603: 602: 601: 561: 560: 559: 558: 555: 498: 497: 496: 495: 481: 480: 479: 478: 464: 463: 462: 461: 458:Warwick Castle 431: 430: 429: 428: 400: 399: 398: 397: 366: 363: 361: 359: 358: 342: 275:Murrays' Mills 230:Warwick Castle 221:Buckton Castle 67: 66: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4160: 4149: 4146: 4145: 4143: 4133: 4131: 4126: 4120: 4119: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4103: 4099: 4096: 4094: 4091: 4089: 4085: 4079: 4076: 4074: 4071: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4060: 4054: 4051: 4041: 4036: 4031: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4003: 3997: 3995: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3937: 3931: 3923: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3894: 3888: 3886: 3879: 3876: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3853: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3821: 3815: 3813: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3785: 3779: 3777: 3770: 3767: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3750: 3742: 3739: 3737: 3730: 3729: 3722: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3710: 3705: 3694: 3693: 3686: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3666: 3662: 3661: 3656: 3651: 3647: 3645: 3640: 3635: 3624: 3623: 3616: 3612: 3607: 3596: 3595: 3588: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3569: 3565: 3559: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3551: 3548: 3545: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3521: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3491: 3485: 3484: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3464: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3449: 3440: 3436: 3433: 3417: 3414: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3403: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3358: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3305: 3299: 3297: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3244: 3236: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3225: 3224: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3202: 3196: 3188: 3182: 3179: 3165: 3160: 3154: 3153: 3144: 3140: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3130: 3128: 3123: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3097: 3092: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3045: 3043: 3038: 3032: 3028: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3001: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2970: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2962: 2954: 2951: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2934: 2932: 2929: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2915: 2912: 2909: 2903: 2900: 2897: 2893: 2887: 2883: 2881: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2854: 2851: 2849: 2846: 2845: 2842: 2837: 2834: 2816: 2813: 2808: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2797: 2789: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2749: 2741: 2735: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2712: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2680: 2674: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2643: 2639: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2606: 2601: 2598: 2596: 2592: 2589: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2575: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547:Mailer Diablo 2544: 2542: 2539: 2532: 2530: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2513:Tell me yours 2506:Basketball110 2502: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2475: 2468: 2464: 2457: 2451: 2448: 2446: 2443: 2437: 2434: 2432: 2427: 2421: 2420: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2364: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2335: 2329: 2326: 2324: 2321: 2316: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2299: 2298: 2287: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2248: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2226:Itfc+canes=me 2223: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209:Itfc+canes=me 2206: 2202: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2182: 2176: 2173: 2171: 2167: 2161: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2118: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2104: 2103: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2060: 2058: 2055: 2049: 2046: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2008: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1983: 1980: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1952: 1947: 1936: 1935: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1905: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1872: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1832: 1824: 1822: 1816: 1813: 1811: 1808: 1800: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1786: 1784: 1777: 1776: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1725: 1722: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1710: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1686: 1683: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1662: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1645: 1643: 1640: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1586: 1583: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1566: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1534: 1531: 1529: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1514: 1509: 1507: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1481: 1479: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1465: 1463: 1459: 1458:contributions 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1442: 1438: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1421: 1419: 1415: 1409: 1406: 1404: 1399: 1393: 1392: 1384: 1381: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1369: 1367: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1323: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1295: 1292: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1186: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1159: 1157: 1150: 1148: 1142: 1138: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1117: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1091: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1073: 1068: 1065: 1063: 1060: 1058: 1057: 1052: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1032: 1030: 1027: 1022: 1016: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 999: 997: 996: 994: 990: 981: 977: 974: 971: 968: 965: 962: 959: 956: 953: 950: 947: 944: 941: 937: 934: 930: 927: 924: 921: 917: 912: 911: 907: 905: 898: 895: 894: 890: 887: 886: 879: 878:cool to watch 875: 872: 871: 869: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 851: 847: 843: 838: 835: 834: 832: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 813: 810: 809: 806: 803:(Swiped from 800: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 783: 780: 779: 778: 773: 767: 759: 753: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 741: 735: 727: 713: 709: 705: 702:Good answer. 701: 700: 697: 692: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 649: 644: 641: 640: 638: 635: 634: 627: 624: 623: 621: 617: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 598: 595: 594: 592: 588: 583: 580: 579: 578: 576: 571: 565: 556: 553: 549: 545: 541: 536: 532: 528: 525: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 508: 507: 506: 505: 502: 501:Question from 492: 489: 488: 486: 483: 482: 476: 472: 468: 467: 466: 465: 459: 455: 451: 447: 442: 439: 438: 436: 433: 432: 426: 422: 417: 414: 411: 408: 404: 403: 402: 401: 395: 390: 386: 381: 378: 377: 375: 372: 371: 370: 364: 362: 357: 353: 349: 345: 344: 343: 340: 339: 336: 331: 323: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 297: 294: 285: 276: 267: 258: 249: 240: 231: 222: 213: 204: 203:Dunham Massey 195: 191: 186: 182: 177: 173: 168: 164: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 117: 114: 108: 105: 102: 99: 96: 93: 90: 87: 84: 81: 78: 73: 64: 63: 62: 61: 60: 56: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4124: 4121: 4097: 4082: 4077: 4062: 4061: 4052: 3993: 3884: 3877: 3874: 3811: 3775: 3768: 3751: 3731: 3724: 3689: 3684: 3679: 3669: 3664: 3659: 3654: 3649: 3619: 3591: 3586: 3585: 3542: 3541: 3522: 3482: 3459: 3447: 3445: 3438: 3434: 3405: 3404: 3360: 3359: 3320: 3319: 3295: 3276: 3275: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3222: 3217: 3212: 3180: 3151: 3142: 3138: 3030: 3026: 3002: 2986: 2971: 2956: 2952: 2935: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2879: 2872: 2860: 2859: 2852: 2839: 2835: 2733: 2672: 2656:my standards 2651: 2628: 2613: 2599: 2587: 2576: 2564:Sumoeagle179 2559: 2550: 2528: 2522: 2511: 2500: 2482: 2466: 2462:Chet B. Long 2449: 2435: 2418: 2412:Net positive 2407: 2390: 2373: 2358: 2342: 2327: 2305: 2282: 2278: 2261: 2249: 2240: 2204: 2191:Cosmic Latte 2186: 2180: 2174: 2153: 2136: 2120:Weak Support 2119: 2109:bananabucket 2106: 2098: 2094: 2077: 2061: 2047: 2030: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012:good user. — 2009: 1985: 1981: 1970: 1964: 1960: 1931: 1926: 1910: 1906: 1889: 1876: 1870: 1838: 1820: 1814: 1792: 1778: 1771: 1766: 1760:in this diff 1750: 1735: 1729: 1728: 1723: 1705: 1700: 1690: 1684: 1663: 1646: 1633:common sense 1628: 1610: 1609: 1603: 1584: 1572:Nick mallory 1567: 1551: 1527: 1521: 1511: 1487: 1482: 1466: 1445: 1428: 1412: 1408:Weak Support 1407: 1390: 1382: 1371: 1365: 1358: 1354: 1337: 1321: 1311: 1307: 1285: 1281: 1248: 1235: 1233: 1226: 1207: 1197: 1195: 1188: 1185:Weak Support 1184: 1166: 1153: 1146: 1140: 1130: 1125: 1120: 1111: 1094: 1085: 1082: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1066: 1055: 1050: 1033: 1014: 986: 985: 972: 966: 960: 954: 948: 942: 935: 928: 922: 903: 896: 888: 877: 873: 867: 858: 857: 846:User:Epbr123 836: 830: 821: 820: 811: 798: 789: 788: 781: 751: 721: 720: 695: 690: 665: 656: 655: 642: 636: 625: 615: 606: 605: 596: 581: 569: 563: 562: 531:for deletion 526: 514:Sumoeagle179 509: 500: 499: 490: 484: 440: 434: 379: 373: 368: 360: 341: 324: 298: 266:Deva Victrix 118: 103: 97: 91: 85: 79: 68: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 3721:Cincinnatus 3435:Weak Oppose 3262:Weak Oppose 3181:Weak Oppose 3031:quite a bit 2890:—Preceding 2456:my criteria 2266:Tim Vickers 2220:—Preceding 2082:Majoreditor 1590:King Pickle 1414:Malinaccier 1223:how I !vote 1116:my criteria 824:Tim Vickers 648:Brittannica 544:implemented 3756:Ecoleetage 3439:Per Rudget 2880:Freakatone 2441:spider1224 2313:DDStretch 2035:FrankTobia 2021:discussion 1253:PhilKnight 1229:Balloonman 1191:Balloonman 1000:Discussion 542:which was 535:Mitch Benn 248:Hale Barns 176:Altrincham 101:block user 95:page moves 31:successful 3849:Peripitus 3005:: Yes. -- 2529:faithless 2363:Athaenara 2080:per nom. 2002:Acalamari 1912:Jauerback 1755:added by 1554:America69 1497:Talk Page 1327:Peripitus 958:block log 881:politely. 805:RfA/Jza84 107:block log 4142:Category 4084:Icewedge 4029:Mastrchf 3875:innocent 3691:Wisdom89 3621:Wisdom89 3593:Wisdom89 3448:Asenine 3390:contribs 3345:contribs 2960:itsJamie 2642:contribs 2591:contribs 2581:Casliber 2359:Support. 2234:contribs 2222:unsigned 2185:(Assume 2101:Blnguyen 1933:Wisdom89 1676:contribs 1638:Tiptoety 1619:4 August 1501:Contribs 1293:Mountain 1213:Tiptoety 926:contribs 450:Trafford 410:articles 284:Mamucium 167:Trafford 158:updating 130:criteria 83:contribs 4098:Neutral 4078:Neutral 4069:My work 4053:Neutral 3769:Neutral 3752:Neutral 3680:suppose 3670:Jameson 3655:benefit 3587:Neutral 3573:Epbr123 3566:Neutral 3412:My work 3382:Tombomp 3378:WP:BITE 3367:My work 3337:Tombomp 3327:My work 3283:My work 3223:Jameson 3105:Protonk 3074:Protonk 3007:Bhadani 3003:Support 2990:Yanksox 2987:Support 2953:Support 2936:Support 2902:Support 2892:undated 2853:Support 2841:Cameron 2836:Support 2734:support 2673:Support 2660:Bearian 2652:Support 2629:Support 2614:Support 2600:Support 2577:Support 2560:Support 2551:approve 2501:Support 2488:Scarian 2483:Support 2450:Support 2436:Support 2408:Support 2391:Support 2374:Support 2343:Support 2328:Support 2306:Support 2279:Support 2262:Support 2241:Support 2154:Support 2137:Support 2124:Useight 2078:Support 2062:Support 2048:Support 2031:Support 2010:Support 1982:Support 1961:Support 1927:Support 1907:Support 1890:Support 1871:Support 1847:Bart133 1839:Support 1815:Support 1793:Support 1724:Support 1701:Support 1685:Support 1668:Tombomp 1664:Support 1651:PeaceNT 1647:Support 1629:Support 1611:$ PЯING 1604:Support 1585:Support 1568:Support 1528:Xp54321 1522:Support 1483:Support 1467:Support 1446:Support 1429:Support 1338:Support 1322:Support 1313:Sceptre 1282:Support 1267:Epbr123 1249:Support 1167:Support 1131:Jameson 1112:Support 1099:Protonk 1095:Support 1067:Support 1034:Support 1015:Support 1009:Support 933:deleted 704:Epbr123 678:Epbr123 659:Epbr123 620:CAT:AOR 419:to the 407:several 293:Urmston 138:example 3935:CAESAR 3878:guilty 3852:(Talk) 3727:Mr. IP 3650:really 3544:Editor 3527:Stifle 3523:Oppose 3248:CAESAR 3200:CAESAR 3143:really 3027:Oppose 3021:Oppose 2908:Editor 2787:Keeper 2739:Keeper 2633:SWik78 2618:Nataly 2549:and I 2319:(talk) 2141:Craigy 2066:chaser 2014:αἰτίας 1798:Keeper 1774:Mr. IP 1617:03:20 1614:εrαgђ 1539:Daniel 1330:(Talk) 1288:Little 1206:Wait, 1155:(talk) 1051:Suport 1038:D.M.N. 771:CAESAR 739:CAESAR 425:WP:RFP 4107:Nsk92 3843:Look 3685:basis 3489:Talk 3483:Jza84 3158:Talk 3152:Jza84 2940:Dureo 2425:Chat 2419:Pedro 2285:jj137 2252:Cobra 2246:Glass 2187:Great 1918:dude. 1691:nancy 1625:(UTC) 1513:Giggy 1492:Natl1 1450:Aqwis 1397:Talk 1391:Jza84 1359:needs 989:civil 940:count 574:cidic 389:Jza84 113:6100+ 55:EVula 16:< 4111:talk 4102:WP:V 4088:talk 4018:talk 4014:Nev1 4001:talk 3994:xeno 3981:talk 3977:Nev1 3951:talk 3909:talk 3892:talk 3885:xeno 3865:talk 3845:here 3835:talk 3819:talk 3812:xeno 3799:talk 3783:talk 3776:xeno 3760:talk 3665:Dean 3577:talk 3553:wiki 3531:talk 3508:talk 3386:talk 3341:talk 3303:talk 3296:xeno 3218:Dean 3126:Dude 3121:Koji 3109:talk 3078:talk 3041:Dude 3036:Koji 3011:talk 2994:talk 2975:Ling 2958:OhNo 2944:talk 2928:Dark 2917:wiki 2776:talk 2762:talk 2758:Nev1 2725:talk 2698:talk 2664:talk 2638:talk 2585:talk 2568:talk 2545:I'm 2459:. -- 2454:and 2399:khoi 2396:Khoi 2382:talk 2293:talk 2270:talk 2230:talk 2213:talk 2195:talk 2165:talk 2145:talk 2128:talk 2086:talk 2039:talk 1992:talk 1972:talk 1898:talk 1879:Toon 1860:talk 1856:Nev1 1843:Nev2 1730:Neıl 1672:talk 1655:talk 1623:2008 1594:talk 1576:talk 1558:talk 1543:talk 1454:talk 1418:talk 1366:Reyk 1346:talk 1271:talk 1257:talk 1176:talk 1126:Dean 1103:talk 1042:talk 970:rfar 952:logs 920:talk 916:Nev1 848:and 708:talk 696:this 682:talk 670:this 587:NSFW 570:xeno 518:talk 352:talk 348:Nev1 317:and 286:and 77:talk 72:Nev1 47:Nev1 3929:AVE 3921:Red 3550:the 3468:Why 3242:AVE 3234:Red 3194:AVE 3186:Red 3139:not 3095:get 3090:Rud 3059:get 3054:Rud 2979:Nut 2914:the 2811:Fan 2806:LAA 2683:Fan 2678:LAA 2473:ARK 1987:DGG 1966:Bob 1894:Axl 1821:Tan 1714:Why 1499:) ( 1475:rex 1373:YO! 1342:Rje 1225:--- 1208:you 1025:get 1020:Rud 976:spi 946:AfD 897:14. 889:13. 868:12. 831:11. 799:10. 765:AVE 757:Red 733:AVE 725:Red 629:be. 334:get 329:Rud 57:at 4144:: 4113:) 4038:) 4032:(/ 4020:) 3983:) 3953:) 3924:2 3911:) 3903:-- 3867:) 3847:- 3837:) 3801:) 3762:) 3706:/ 3660:S. 3636:/ 3608:/ 3579:) 3547:of 3533:) 3510:) 3502:-- 3486:| 3479:-- 3462:So 3437:- 3392:) 3347:) 3237:2 3213:S. 3189:2 3155:| 3148:-- 3111:) 3080:) 3013:) 2996:) 2972:+S 2946:) 2911:of 2795:76 2778:) 2764:) 2747:76 2727:) 2713:— 2700:) 2666:) 2640:• 2602:. 2593:) 2570:) 2536:() 2422:: 2384:) 2376:- 2366:✉ 2352:— 2272:) 2236:) 2232:• 2215:) 2197:) 2168:) 2147:) 2130:) 2113:) 2088:) 2068:- 2041:) 1994:) 1948:/ 1900:) 1862:) 1830:39 1806:76 1708:So 1678:) 1657:) 1621:, 1606:— 1596:) 1578:) 1560:) 1545:) 1460:) 1456:– 1394:| 1387:-- 1348:) 1310:. 1273:) 1259:) 1178:) 1170:-- 1121:S. 1105:) 1083:ld 1078:ho 1075:on 1072:Ir 1044:) 964:lu 874:A. 837:A. 812:A. 782:A. 760:2 752:9. 728:2 710:) 691:A. 684:) 674:G7 666:8. 643:A. 637:7. 626:A. 616:6. 597:A: 582:5. 527:A: 520:) 510:4. 491:A: 485:3. 441:A: 435:2. 416:my 413:on 380:A: 374:1. 354:) 313:, 309:, 305:, 295:. 277:, 259:, 250:, 241:, 232:, 223:, 214:, 205:, 196:, 187:, 178:, 169:, 152:, 148:, 36:. 4109:( 4090:) 4086:( 4035:c 4016:( 4004:) 3998:( 3979:( 3949:( 3938:) 3932:· 3926:( 3907:( 3895:) 3889:( 3863:( 3833:( 3822:) 3816:( 3797:( 3786:) 3780:( 3758:( 3738:》 3732:《 3711:) 3701:T 3696:( 3641:) 3631:T 3626:( 3613:) 3603:T 3598:( 3575:( 3529:( 3506:( 3465:# 3388:/ 3384:( 3343:/ 3339:( 3306:) 3300:( 3251:) 3245:· 3239:( 3203:) 3197:· 3191:( 3107:( 3076:( 3068:( 3009:( 2992:( 2977:. 2942:( 2938:- 2926:— 2844:* 2791:ǀ 2774:( 2760:( 2743:ǀ 2723:( 2711:L 2708:C 2696:( 2662:( 2644:) 2636:( 2620:a 2588:· 2583:( 2566:( 2509:/ 2467:/ 2380:( 2350:L 2347:C 2296:) 2290:( 2268:( 2228:( 2211:( 2203:' 2193:( 2183:F 2181:G 2179:A 2162:( 2143:( 2126:( 2105:( 2084:( 2070:t 2037:( 2025:• 2017:• 1990:( 1953:) 1943:T 1938:( 1915:/ 1896:( 1858:( 1826:ǀ 1802:ǀ 1785:》 1779:《 1762:) 1739:☄ 1711:# 1674:/ 1670:( 1653:( 1592:( 1574:( 1556:( 1541:( 1503:) 1495:( 1473:- 1471:T 1452:( 1420:) 1416:( 1344:( 1298:5 1269:( 1255:( 1174:( 1141:« 1101:( 1086:s 1040:( 978:) 973:· 967:· 961:· 955:· 949:· 943:· 936:· 929:· 923:· 918:( 807:) 774:) 768:· 762:( 742:) 736:· 730:( 706:( 680:( 516:( 350:( 319:5 315:4 311:3 307:2 303:1 109:) 104:· 98:· 92:· 86:· 80:· 75:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Nev1 - Knowledge

Index