Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard 2

1040:

not be used as a requirement for adminship. WikiProjects do not determine whether someone is qualified for adminship or not. Anthony Appleyard has 22186 edits to the mainspace. Kelly Martin's reasoning for neutral gives me more reason to support this user. Anthony Appleyard does plenty of mainspace edits; he does not need to join a WikiProject if he doesn't want to, and no one should force him. Most of the community wants to see experience and civility in a user who is running for adminship...not the amount of WikiProjects the user is involved in. I too, want to see those qualities; which Anthony Appleyard seems to have.

319:), or you have submitted articles for AfD within minutes of their creation without either tagging them or giving them time to improve, and without notifying the creator. While this isn't necessarily a criticism - I do realise AfD isn't a vote and people do have different views of what is appropriate - do you feel that there are any issues with someone whose attitude to what should & shouldn't be deleted appears at odds with the majority being given speedy-deletion powers, and if so how would you address them? 412:. It says about reliable sources, to make sure that available information is accurate; the matter here is a statement warning the readers that unreliable external source xxxx (here, an advertisement) is unreliable. Not all readers are as intelligent as those who are discussing this matter here. This sort of advertisement is one of the places where distinguishing fact from fiction is not always 100% obvious to all 2146:", inviting the deleter to discuss the matter; if he had stated a good reason for the deletion, I would have understood him. This case seems to be a section for "fictional occurrence of a real process", of which there are thousands on Knowledge (XXG) pages. Perhaps this ==Trivia== section could be renamed ==Decompression sickness in fiction==. Someone has again deleted it, and I will let it stay deleted. 161:

that I could do. (I am not expert in all fields of knowledge, and I may have to ask for another opinion about deleting/etc articles on some subjects.) Perhaps discussions about possible improvements to Knowledge (XXG) software. (I realize that a very short new info page, whether or not someone else {{db}}'ed it, may merely be someone's first temporary safety save while editing and he may expand it later.)

396:). That type of advertisement often tends to run for weeks, at least on UK TV, and it did not make it clear enough that Cougar Arts as described there does not exist in the real world; I felt that something needed to be done to tell users that it does not exist in the real world. After the advertisement has stopped running, the article could be deleted. OK, OK, as stated above, "I live and learn". 329:") was kept, and another user before me also voted "keep" for it. As regards other cases, if I had any doubt about whether a page should be deleted, I would AfD it, as ordinary users do, and let others discuss and decide about whether to delete it. As regards the two new pages which I AfD'ed today, others also have voted "delete" for 1039:

per Kelly Martin's neutral. I do not care whether a user is in a WikiProject or not; WikiProjects do not determine whether someone should be an administrator or not: experience, community trust, and civility matter far more than WikiProjects. While I agree that WikiProjects are important, they should

83:

and is ready to take the plunge into RfA again. He's got more than enough edits (over 25k), He participates pretty much everywhere, and although he may make the occasional mistake, he learns from it and becomes a better Wikipedian from it. Really, anyone that takes criticism constructively and builds

2074:

for a prime albeit bitchy example) but "0 Ghits" is generally a pretty good indicator that something's not right. In the unlikely event you don't pass this RfA (looks pretty certain you will), assuming you address the problems with deletions I'd certainly support on the next one, as that seems to be

1860:

and they generally do not demonstrate that Anthony has formulated an applied understanding of Knowledge (XXG) process. Anthony's answer in Q5.C -- "If an *fD discussion in total pointed one way, but I tended to think the other way, I would follow the total discussion result." -- has me concerned as

160:

Page moves that need admin intervention. Deleting {{db}}'ed pages (but if I felt even slightly doubtful about speedy-deleting a page, I would leave it to another admin). Due action at the end of the AfD process. Banning vandals (after any due discussion). Protecting and semiprotecting. Anything else

2576:

Looks a goody, but I have concerns about user interaction (extremely low number of user talk interactions for someone with so many edits) but also for including in answer to Q1 actions that non admins can and do perform, such as warning vandals and discussing changes to Knowledge (XXG). And your Q2

2168:

That sort of thing on a popular TV program tends to result in wrong instruction to the public about diving diseases. In Britain at least, scuba diving organizations down the years have had enough battles to correct wrong ideas spread by unknowledgeable people such as non-diving newspaper reporters

2332:

Based on the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, I'm afraid his actions will require too much monitoring. He does seem to be quick to admit mistakes and to educate himself on policies, but it is only after the fact. Administrators should be able to act unilaterally in many cases with the

1704:

I checked out the article, and I did my own research on this guy. Anthony's had a good deal of experience in AfDs, and he should be able to conduct his own research before deciding on an article. Through my research, I did not see any reason to have an article on this guy. This guy is an obscure

2371:

How do you expect a wiki-project to endorse a candidate? And how do you expect this to happen without it being seen as canvassing? I'm sorry, I've explained on your talk page but there's no mechanism in place, and their will likely never be a mechanism in place because it's not possible to get

1672:

which just occurred six days ago. Of course, you can be an inclusionist, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The reasoning that the user provided for his choice to keep the article has nothing to do with the article. I question this user's judgment and I am worried what he would do as an

2217:

Actually, Anthony's in the right here, at least in my opinion. I think El C deleted the section more because it was labeled as trivia rahter than what information it contained, since the information is useful. (But yes, labeling it as "...in popular culture" or "...in fiction" would've been

269:

I have had plenty of user talk interactions with other users about what to put on pages. The discussion text was sometimes on the page in question's talk page, sometimes in the other user's talk page, sometimes on my talk page; but they did not get acrimonious enough for me to class them as

2623:. It's not about conflicting rules and policies, it's (at least, to me) about making decisions that are in the best interest of the project, even if the rules say differently. However, since this is my first time asking this question, I'm not going to oppose anyone for responding to it. 1881:

in an XfD. In general, the language Anthony uses in his Knowledge (XXG) space posts, including his AfD posts, and his posts in this RfA leaves me with the impression that Anthony has not actually reviewed written process to the point where he is able to apply that written process. --

2577:

answer made me query your judgement... RfA is not the place to be shy about your contributions. There are only four set questions; you really do need to answer them to the best of your ability. Shame, because I wanted to support someone who learns from mistakes and is so dedicated. --

596:

rules against external links in disambig page alternatives, but there are thousands of such disambig alternatives in practice, because the only likely other method would be to make the disambig alternative point to a short stub page whose only purpose is to carry the external link.

2274:

discusses the fictional illness, but there is no mention in either article in which way it was in/accurate. Regardless, it's certainly not a matter worth opposing over and I find myself impressed by your answers (more by the tone than the answers themselves). Thanks for your time.

1921:

as a reason for keeping. Consequently I don't feel it's appropriate for him to be in a position to close *fD debates. I am also extremely put off by the arrogance of "distinguishing fact from fiction is not always 100% obvious to all IQ ranges of viewers" in his answer to

2677:. If there is a problem in the guideline, work with other editors to change it; if there is consensus that your favored method is not beneficial, systematically ignoring guidelines is not the way to go about using IAR. I also hope that the nominee will take to heart that 1694:

I don't know about this specific article, but "is there a reasonable chance that people would want to be able to find more information about this person or entity" is really a very good precis of what a lot of our notability guidelines do or should boil down to.

382:

and the primary notability criterion c)would you be willing to close *fDs in directions that you personally disagreed with if the community consensus was clear or if the policy basis was clear but you disagreed with the policy or guidelines that were relevant?

2661:. On the other hand, the article was in a pretty dire state at the point of his AfD, and to my knowledge there's no policy requiring any "extra" research of the type I mentioned, so it would seem unfair for me to oppose on those grounds. 1461:

Anthony appears to be a good fellow who has dedicated lots of his valuable time helping improve our encyclopedia. I think his having some extra buttons can only enhance both his own volunteer experience and the project at-large. Good luck!

900:

My oppose comments in the last RfA was probably the main reason for the unsuccessful RfA. I think Anthony has definitely improved since then, and I am comfortable with the tools in Anthony's hands. By the way, can you explain what this

1909:

When I asked Q4 above, I was neutral veering towards 'accept'. However his answer to this and to Joshua's related question, and the examples raised by other editors above and on his previous RfA, seem to indicate that he considers

551:, I knew that advice; too often people put up with text that could be improved, treating the text-as-it-is as sacred, instead of improving it, a habit derived likely from reading ordinary books and web pages that they cannot edit. 491:

rule to describing an external situation where scientists being NPOV is treated as objectionable. And, in multi-disambigs, often inevitably some of the lines are dictdefs; but pushing those entries into Wiktionary would result in

2142:, but so many pages have Trivia sections that it seems that practicality often commands otherwise, and that "Trivia" sections are really "Miscellaneous". At the edit complained about at the link above, I used the edit-comment " 1579:

I share Nishkid's concern, and worry that our collective threshold of tolerance for non-encyclopedic material is much too lenient, but we all have our flaws and I support those with editorial experience taking on these chores.

666:

I went RfA when an administrator invited me to. After I was told where this information is, I have been studying it (including during the day, as I am retired), and I am quickly becoming familiar with it. Following my study of

1769:- is hardly any argument for the inclusion of the article. It is apparent though, Mr. Appleyard was unaware of the policies when he made the comment, and he has accepted that in his reply to Josh. I see no reason why he would 2011:

I was going by how I had seen various other people putting messages in AfD's. Now that I know pointers to official guide files, I can go by them. I will hold fire on closing AfD's until I have seen it being done for a while.

1814:

AfD concerns were raised last RfA, and yet there are still !vote reasons against or neglecting policy. Answer to 5b is either a misunderstanding of the question, or a misunderstanding of notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not

1597:- Most of the opposition seems to boil down to, 'he is an inclusionist'. Philosophical differences on where to draw the 'notability line' are hardly a reason to deny someone the mop. Good user with plenty of experience. -- 1206:

this candidate. He is also courteous, polite and sensitive to his fellow users, something we could all learn from him. Over and over, his presence has a positive influence on the encyclopedia and the community as a whole.

482:

The main case for invoking it seems to be when rules and/or policies clash and thus there is no way to avoid breaking one or the other. When situations arise which were not anticipated by whoever made the rules. E.g. in

309:

I notice from the AfD discussions page that in all of the recent AfD discussions in which you've !voted, you have either been the only person (or one of the few people) saying "keep" when the consensus is "delete" (eg

278:.) On a few pages I have had to revert and warn anonymous users deleting the same text repeatedly without explanation. People searching my talk page should also look in my yearly talk backup files pointed to in 1705:

character who you would not find in Knowledge (XXG). In conclusion, I highly doubt anyone would actually look this guy up on Knowledge (XXG). By the way, there are flaws in your idea about notability (see

2521:

Isnt it about time that an editor doesnt get judged on 1 or 2 mistakes he or she may had made but be judged as a whole...So what is he isnt affiliated with any Wikiprojects, he shouldnt be judged on that

521:, and its dependent pages in Knowledge (XXG) and Wikimedia, various times, and they are part of the "rules and/or guidelines" that I referred to hereinabove when answering Q6. I knew for a long time that 1839:

states that is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" There is no world geographic requirement for Knowledge (XXG) Notability. As for what is Knowledge (XXG) Notability, it says right in the text of

1673:

administrator in such situations. If he saw prodded article, would he choose to keep it just in case someone wants to look up the information? At the moment, I cannot trust this user with the tools.

234: 2724: 696: 2015: 291:

As regards stress: I have had the usual amount of trouble with vandals and people who edit without knowing the subject properly, but I treat it as the way of the world like the weather.

133:

I have already had to warn and ban vandals on two minor Yahoo email groups (one of which I started, and another was started by another man who passed most of its management onto me).

2030: 668: 1557: 238: 1857: 1012: 80: 147:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

2510:

articles deleted, all the time? An experienced user should have supplied an argument more firmly based in policy. Might sit on the fence with this one for a little while. –

2020: 1953: 1892: 1878: 1874: 1866: 1862: 638: 593: 2673:. Great temperament, very approachable, but I am bothered by some of the answers. In particular I am unhappy with the broad interpretation of IAR and the comments about 1831:. Although trustworthy, I do not think that Anthony has demonstrated enough applied understanding of process to be an administrator at this time. For example, in this 1328:. I've had nothing but good experiences with this user. I realise that 'not a teenager' probably isn't a good reason to support, but it's certainly a positive for me. 263:

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?

2681:, in and of itself, is not a reason to close a discussion; the lines of thought in the comments themselves are the reasons. I really want to avoid seeing "closed per 1052:

A competent and experienced wikipedian. The first oppose vote should be deleted as nonsense, the second reates to a single incident which is, in my view, trivial.--

2601: 1669: 241:. I provided the stub template {{Diving-stub}} and its embedded image; previously diving stubs were lumped in with sport stubs such as about football. And work on 1381:

Good editor, shows knowledge of Knowledge (XXG)'s inner workings. Responses to questions manage to be polite, matter of fact, and authoritative at the same time.

2139: 2116: 177:

I will leave it to other people to say which articles that I have worked on have benefited from it. I have worked on or added matter to various pages related to

378:

In regard to the oppositions below, especially the second one: a) please explain in more detail your logic behind voting to keep, b) explain what you think of

2654: 1754:

Of course, you wouldn't. AfDs are not supposed to be perceived as a place for "voting" where the administrator simply counts the number of votes and then

2742: 1636: 1552: 394: 2409:

No shes not, shes not supporting any candidate unless a wikiproject specifically comes and supports a candidate, read her talk page (it's all there)

2333:

implication that they are making the right choices, and I'm not confident that the candidate has the knowledge to act according to that standard. --

2413: 2376: 1651: 733: 76: 1762:

s the articles. As far as I can see, the reasoning Mr. Appleyard provided was nowhere within the purview of the Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. That

2506:

per link provided by Nishkid64. Isn't 'somebody might come looking for it sometime' the rationale provided by people who get their band/company/

2187:

It seemed worth including to active scuba divers. I realise that what is encyclopedic to one reader may not be encyclopedic to another reader. (

548: 559: 499: 294:

I realize that sometimes Knowledge (XXG) rules and guidelines contradict and that a middle course must sometimes be steered between them.

2564:

seems to be very good at editing, but some edit summaries aren't so good and some strange decisions, both inclusionist and deletionist.

692: 1640: 1411:- has enough wiki edits all around to give adminship a good go and it's damn fine to see a potential admin that also writes articles.-- 616: 33: 17: 1388: 439:(c): If an *fD discussion in total pointed one way, but I tended to think the other way, I would follow the total discussion result. 425:

OK, I have learned: warning readers about unreliable external sources does not seem to belong in Knowledge (XXG). I live and learn.

84:

from it is an asset to the community. He appears to be an extremely calm user who will do what it takes to improve Knowledge (XXG).

1479:

Switch from oppose, which I likely would have withdrawn anyway, but responsiveness and matter-of-fact responses earned my support.

1792:

I was intending already to watch what the other administrators did for a while before I ventured to do anything serious myself.

2453: 1551:

Genuine concern raised by Nishkid, but I still think this candidate is trustworthy – and I see no real worry of tool abuse. —

1632: 1143:- Obviously this user will help the community as an administrator, constructive edit history and good general involvement. - 242: 198: 393:) gets 332 entries, and for `"Cougar Arts" -wikipedia' gets 686 entries (including a minor real martial arts organization 2204:

in any way encyclopedic? Which illnesses is the passage refering to? Should we take the anonymous editor's word for it?

2025: 1170: 555: 518: 1230: 1132: 202: 1647:

At present Anthony Appleyard isn't an administrator so can't delete articles. What leads you to believe that he would?

572: 342: 279: 271: 171:

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

70: 1520:

experienced, approachable and highly capable contributor, have no doubt the tools would be used with all due care.--

2707: 2694: 2665: 2643: 2634: 2614: 2590: 2581: 2568: 2550: 2539: 2528: 2516: 2492: 2471: 2460: 2441: 2420: 2404: 2383: 2366: 2342: 2323: 2314: 2305: 2279: 2262: 2237: 2224: 2208: 2195: 2182: 2173: 2159: 2150: 2133: 2100: 2049: 2040: 2006: 1960: 1947: 1899: 1895:. I will study it and its dependent pages well before I attempt any deletion handing from the administration side. 1886: 1823: 1796: 1787: 1749: 1738: 1725: 1699: 1689: 1658: 1620: 1601: 1589: 1571: 1559: 1546: 1534: 1512: 1498: 1483: 1474: 1453: 1441: 1429: 1417: 1403: 1391: 1373: 1352: 1340: 1332: 1320: 1301: 1287: 1275: 1258: 1234: 1213: 1197: 1164: 1147: 1135: 1123: 1111: 1095: 1079: 1056: 1044: 1031: 1019: 1003: 984: 962: 946: 920: 889: 870: 857: 834: 820: 808: 794: 782: 770: 758: 740: 675: 659: 641:. I will study it and its dependent pages well before I attempt any deletion handing from the administration side." 601: 587: 566: 512: 484: 475: 443: 429: 420: 400: 357: 286: 137: 128: 119: 103: 90: 2417: 2380: 2357:. Appears to be a suitable candidate, but the lack of a WikiProject endorsement forces me to withhold support. 1655: 1628: 1617: 737: 79:) - Anthony Appleyard's been around Knowledge (XXG) for quite a long time, and I think he's learned greatly from 578: 525:

is needed, and accordingly if a talk page discussion over a point looks like getting too acrimonious I back out.

2657:

without doing the ten seconds of due diligence involved in clicking through to the press page to discover that

2268: 2243: 817: 766:

per nom. The candidate is experienced and well-qualified to use the tools well for the benefit of the project.

1911: 1849: 1844:

that "a topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject,

1268: 729:- seen this user around and believe he will do well with the tools, no doubt a very cautious admin. Good luck 581:

of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.

2612: 2410: 2373: 1648: 1495: 1129: 998: 887: 730: 230: 186: 2090: 1996: 1937: 1841: 1836: 1119:

More than enough experience. I don't think his application of deletion policy is anything to worry about.

409: 2704: 2640: 2587: 2362: 2338: 2311: 2259: 2251: 2192: 2170: 2147: 2037: 1957: 1896: 1793: 1508: 1385: 688: 672: 598: 584: 563: 509: 440: 426: 417: 397: 354: 338: 283: 226: 134: 125: 116: 100: 66: 522: 2524: 2071: 1777:

them, if he would sit back for sometime and watched other administrators function. I am leaning towards

1598: 1527: 1311: 1144: 1053: 791: 754: 2723:

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

1873:, not "total discussion result." In addition to administrators, experienced editors should understand 1015:, I said "Seems like he'd be a productive and reasonable administrator." I still think this is true. 816:

Experience gained since the previous RfA shows that the admin tools won't be abused by this candidate.

562:: often what is 100% obvious to one is not obvious to another who has a different personal background. 2078: 1984: 1925: 1743:

I voted to delete that article at AfD, but I do not consider the Keep vote to have been unreasonable.

330: 222: 2255: 1585: 1426: 1120: 233:

and some of their dependent pages, including having to translate text from Danish into English. Also

2674: 2486: 2435: 2398: 2054:

Still oppose, but much more weakly than before in light of your replies. As Pomte says, don't take

1719: 1683: 1308: 1159: 1073: 940: 914: 210: 2457: 1316: 346: 2689: 2606: 1492: 1472: 1463: 1370: 1174: 1092: 993: 881: 867: 214: 2166:

Decompression sickness was used in a fiction story, and the scriptwriter got the symptoms wrong.

2155:

Did you read the section before restoring it? If so, did you find it to have been encyclopedic?

337:.) If I stand accused of a habit of AfD'ing new pages, please list the other claimed examples. 2624: 2565: 2466: 2358: 2334: 2070:

might not be an argument in and of itself (plenty of crap passes it with flying colours - see

1782: 1735: 1504: 1450: 1412: 1382: 1208: 1104: 971: 465: 206: 2700: 2682: 2678: 2507: 1668:. My concerns in the previous RfA were in regards to an AfD vote that the user made. I found 1283: 652: 648: 628: 624: 1696: 1521: 1028: 767: 2620: 2388:

I think what Kelly means to say is that Anthony has no affiliations with any WikiProjects.

2242:

The course of the fictional illness and its attempted fictional treatment are described in

2067: 2059: 2055: 1918: 1706: 644: 620: 461: 2046: 1870: 1820: 1581: 493: 99:

and thus likelier to have time free in weekday daytime than someone who is still in work.

1845: 1731: 1063:

The fact that he did it before (set a precedent) indicates that it's not really trivial.

1877:

as it is important at deletion review. I do not see Anthony as being ready to determine

2662: 2534: 2478: 2427: 2390: 2219: 1711: 1675: 1222: 1156: 1065: 1041: 1016: 932: 906: 844: 803: 749: 85: 2058:

too seriously; it's a personal view & not any kind of policy. Personally, I think

379: 2736: 2686: 2320: 2302: 1883: 1568: 1362: 1349: 828:

per nom. Also, things have moved on since the last RFA. Everything looks good here -

656: 529: 194: 1835:

made today, Anthony asks whether the subject was "notable to the world in general."

1399:

We need more cranky old guys, who write articles. Seriously, will be fine, I'm sure

2578: 1400: 1337: 368: 250: 178: 2202:

Even though it was used as the plot, most of the illnesses shown were unrealistic

2658: 1438: 1226: 959: 829: 779: 2189:

I am sorry about the delay, but the server suspended while its slave caught up.

2178:

I reiterate the question: did you find that section to have been encyclopedic?

2546: 2512: 1543: 583:". For example, this sometimes happens with an AfD which is terminated early. 533: 190: 96: 2717:

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

341:

06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S. The three pages involved further above were

2372:

endorsement from a whole wiki project without serious questions being asked

2276: 2234: 2205: 2179: 2156: 2130: 2124: 1852:" Anthony's answer in Q5.B does not seem to express this. I have reviewed 1480: 1329: 1296: 334: 275: 2310:

Please: which of my deletion-associated actions do you have concern with?

2267:

Sorry for neglecting to respond. Sounds good in theory, but in practice,

2247: 1745: 1244: 350: 326: 56: 671:

and related pages, I have been making more goes at commenting in AfD's.

182: 2727:

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

1816: 325:

Of your three examples that I voted "keep" for, the third (the page "

246: 2246:. The real-world effect is that via that episode real people got ( 970:

the edit-summary usage issue has been addressed. Good candidate. —

790:, bingo, great editor. Gets my support, no question, good luck! 389:(a): Google search for `"Barry Dawson" "Cougar Arts" -wikipedia' ( 1503:

AfD concerns are not sufficiently strong to withhold support, --

1969:

and the similar post mentioned above about Canadian basketball,

488: 218: 59: 2653:- I found it a minor annoyance that the candidate would submit 2619:

I don't believe the candidate understands the reasoning behind

2045:

That last one is only an essay, but it does have good points. –

1977:, although I've no doubt that even should he fail this time he 464:? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? 205:, and various makes of underwater or industrial breathing set ( 243:

History of the Arabic alphabet#Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions

235:

Timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion & takeover of Britain

1764:

someone looks in Knowledge (XXG) to find who Barry Dawson is.

541: 496:

between Knowledge (XXG) and Wiktionary. The stated basis is "

110:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2016:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrator intervention against vandalism

1155:. Excellent editor, works hard to improve the encyclopedia. 2586:

I have extended my answers to question 2 and 3: see above.

2465:

OH, Ho Ho Ho... seemply hilarious Mr. Marsh. Full marks! --

1981:

pass in a few months and will make an excellent sysop then.

502:

prevent you from improving or maintaining Knowledge (XXG),

413: 2533:

Uh, did you put this comment on the wrong neutral comet?--

2115:

I'm concerned that this user is seemingly unfamiliar with

2031:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

1734:

in case anyone wanted to see what Anthony wanted to keep.

669:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

643:

My question, do you think that you were familiar with the

1542:, valuable content editor and no chance of tool abuse. -- 1348:

I supported before, and see no reason to change my mind.

655:

before submitting your RfA request? Please elaborate. --

237:

including having to translate text from Anglo-Saxon. And

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2544:

I said nothing about PJs, you may mean the one above. –

2425:

Oh jeez. That's ridiculous. Ignore my previous comment.

2120: 1966: 1915: 1853: 1832: 902: 632: 317: 314: 311: 189:, some of the pages about each nation's frogman corps, 2659:

yes, this site has a pretty strong case for notability

2021: