Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2

3210:, IMHO. If a consensus is there to make this a guideline (or heck, even policy), I see little reason to oppose. Until then it is just an opinion. I do not hold this process in contempt; the exact opposite is true, but holding people to some vague, imaginary standard that isn't defined is like a cop pulling someone over and telling them "Your car looks too fast. Bring it around again in 3 months and I'll probably let you drive it through here then." That's not the law and a cop just can't make it up on a whim. If there is a compelling reason and consensus to have such a "rule" then let's get it in the directions. I'd support 2 weeks - 1 month, or maybe 1000 mainspace edits, or any reasonable additional criteria provided it has consensus. Honestly, 802:. I think that blocking people for past acts...is what we do; kinda hard to block them for future acts... but I assume you mean acts far in the past. In that case, I would refrain from blocking them, though I might warn them on their talk page as a friendly reminder or suggest the complaining party do the same. If someone is repeatedly violating it, punishments should rise accordingly. In a backlog, it all depends how long the backlog is. If it is a few hours? days? weeks? months? It's all a matter of perspective. Basically hours: yes; days: probably, but I'll temper it on severity and time since last edit. Weeks: probably not, except in extreme cases. Months: I can't imagine dong anything other than a note on their talk page. 3831:

going to start parroting Knowledge (XXG) policy back at you, but a reasonable person would see a pattern of reverts at A&M related articles that is indicate of somebody who has assumed ownership over those works. You keep saying people ignore the solutions you've offered, but that's generally because they don't solve the problem that originally caused the dispute. You don't acknowledge the other side and so these debates rage on for days or weeks until the other side gives up. This is absolutely not the behavior of an administrator and at this point I'd think you'd be better off withdrawing this RfA, cooling off for a bit and coming back later with a little more flexibility on these issues.

3322:

prefer that those rules were clear and precise, so that every user has a fair chance to conform their conduct to community norms. So I don't think that BQZip01 has shown any kind of contempt for community consensus. If you want to oppose on the grounds that three weeks isn't long enough to have improved from the last RfA, then that's fine; I personally disagree, but it's a perfectly fair and well-reasoned rationale, and I respect the opinion of those who have made that comment. But I don't think people should oppose on the basis that he's failed to follow an uncodified and arbitrary "rule" which, in fact, has no binding force whatsoever.

3172:

organizations have values and customs with little direct connection to the job at hand, and that you dismiss them at your peril. In effect, you've shown up for inspection wearing sneakers and a crumbled, stained uniform, and we're - demonstrably - no more amused than your top would be. Protesting that you had no idea you were supposed to wear shined shoes wouldn't have done you good then ... it was your job to know. In the wake of your last RfA, more than one editor suggested you hook up with an admin coach who could show you the ropes. That advice was sound then, and you should take it now.

3532:

sake of policy is, in a word, stupid. But arguing extensively over things that by reading a dozen or two failed repeat RFAs is obvious is just bizarre. RFA is a dog and pony show, but thats what it is. Looking more at your contribs and tone you seem to be always ready to leap headfirst into a lawyerly, overly legal and procedural defense. Common sense is what drives us, the whole "IAW" and Law Of The Land thing--no offense--is the way things work in the military, having known many, many, many, many military men myself, but not here. Rules are nothing more than what someone

1034:, and his edit history. I will be happy to give assistance as requested. Additionally, I also only intend to take cases for block/rejection that are pretty clear-cut (WP:3RR and WP:SSP). Anything done administratively at that point would be a violation of Knowledge (XXG) policy. I would be happy to warn them and explain the problem to help correct it, but anything taken that far is likely a problem anyway. I have only once (see above) fallen into that trap, so I don't see it as a problem I would explicitly deal with in administrative actions. 4287:(nods) I wonder how many Oppose voters would have been quite satisfied with something along the lines of "Damn, I'm sorry I missed that. Fair enough, if you folks expect a few months between RfAs so you're satisfied the changes you wanted to see in me stuck, I can do that. You'll be seeing me in the summer." Most of us? One of the most pressing needs in any consensus-run community is the ability to recognize when you're on the losing side of an argument, and to close it up and either follow or get out of the way. 4202:

have to know that what you are doing on your page is visable. The question is why in the world you would do this, especially now? Is it self destructiveness? Immaturity? Inability to see the end result of ones actions? It does not matter. It becomes increasingly clear to your supporters as to why you filed for RfA and what you would do with the tools if you had them. A word of advice...when you find yourself in a hole and things are collapsing in all around...you just might want to stop digging

4071:

the editor's conduct on-Wiki. Whether or not it is wise to disclose your profession in such a way on-Wiki is a whole other can of worms, but a person choosing to reveal their real name or career is not entitled to any special rights or priveledges that other editors do not also enjoy. Whether someone is an officer in the Military has nothing to do with assessment of their on-Wiki actions. If any user has demonstrated immaturity, it's perfectly fine to state as much in their RFA.

3267:

agree with him. Admins can be expected to be aware of, and to follow, those rules explicitly laid down by the community in policies and guidelines - just as a member of the armed forces must follow all orders and regulations, no matter what they personally think about it. But it is not reasonable to expect people to be aware of an uncodified, informal convention, such as waiting 3 months between RfAs, and to follow it as if it were a binding rule.

151:

up with some way to allow users to notify those with whom they have collaborated that they are trying to become an administrator without undue influence. In the interests of clarity and avoiding undue influence, I request that any user I contacted in my previous nomination annotate as such and only respond in the neutral section. If you choose to support or oppose me, I request that you mark that I contacted you on my previous RfA.

875:. While I don't always agree with him, it still gives a useful stick from which to measure. His insight and depth of experience in this area also allow for some consistency in the rules and clarification when necessary (he will even interject comments like "this is not an actionable objection"), which here could allow for a smoother process with a more structured approach. I would like to stress that 3359:

intended to be a blunt answer to emphasize a point, not contempt. Users across Knowledge (XXG) are blunt all the time (just look around this RfA). I take no great offense at it, but I will explain my rationale, as requested. For clarification, I wasn't aware this was a requirement and I will remember that some people believe it is so for next time I apply (should I decide to do so).

4619:(still under construction) are examples of what I mean; I did all the sourcing on each of them. It's a little thing, but being two of our most important policies (to me) I'd say work on that, and wait a few months, and do some recent changes patrol--dealing with and correctly blocking random vandals is a major part of what you'll have to do. You only have 11 posts so far to 251:

sharp the criticism was. In any situation, by delaying a response for a day (or more), both sides of a discussion are forced to cool down. In my case, the conflict subsided rather quickly. Furthermore, by initiating a slowdown, those who want a quick fiery death for a perceived archnemesis (colorful language used strictly for effect), are disappointed and move along.

4046:. Considering that this user technically meets most of my standards, as an active user, I still must oppose. The userpage(s) are overly promotional; this self-nom is too soon; the user has demonstrated immaturity; the user's answers are very poor. I'm not going to belabor these and other points raised by others against the gentleman. Sorry, sir. 2905:"...this user will go many steps further and actively seek to undermine people who have made those edits." How so? You have made several edits with which I disagree and you call it stalking (never mind the article you were trying to delete was kept). I and any other editor are open to edit any page we wish. This is an encyclopedia that 1792:, and not on your contribution history, which is excellent. There is no evidence that you will abuse the tools, therefore I am happy to support your self-nom. The horrible irony here is that you were first opposed on a technicality, and now you're opposed on the technicality of not waiting long enough since that technicality? Ick. 4111:

of phrasing - I think a more respectful term should be used than "immaturity", given who the candidate is. It was only a minor point, but one that's important to me personally. As I said, I have no quibble with the substantive grounds for Bearian's oppose (I disagree with him, but he has every right to oppose in good faith).

1703:- He and I are both involved in the Waterboarding arbitration case, and his comments there demonstrate level-headedness and a sound understanding of NPOV. I have no issue with the short lapse of time between the two RfAs; IMO the previous RfA should have passed anyway, and even if he wasn't ready then, he certainly is now. 1622:, but I will not hold it against you. I think you need a little more paitents in your pursuit of greater responsibility, but I have seen your capacity to remain cool in the face of heated debate and your willingness to meet others half way, therefore I offer my support for your rfa and moral support should this one fail. 1952:- His RfAs seem to implode, because he falls into RfA's recursive traps, but we should look past that. He has a "do it, fix it, try it" mentality, he genuinely cares about Knowledge (XXG) and the people in it, and he's resilient. These will make him a fine admin. He needs more familiarity with this community's 2846:

thing (though still incompatible with policy), but this user will go many steps further and actively seek to undermine people who have made those edits. This has a chilling effect on those editors and may discourage their contributions in this future. It is for these actions that I firmly oppose this nomination.

3655:, and often seems unwilling to listen to or consider the views of other editors. While he allowed my removal of the A&M seal from the A&M article to stand, so far, someone aiming for adminship who mostly focuses on university articles should have recognized the problem earlier, and not needed to have a 2648:. "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such." If university officials have discussed "expansion plans for Kyle Field which could boost capacity to 115,000 with the addition of a south endzone and wraparound seating," and BQZip made an image that illustrated that, then I have to conclude it's 4237:. It appears to me that the candidate's application is blatantly self-serving, writing whatever the candidate believes is most likely to "sell" -- but a truer picture of the candidate's temperment is to be found in the ongoing discussion, which fundamentally contradicts the candidate's earlier assertions. 3050:. I have posted numerous compromises and you have seen fit to acknowledge or offer an additional compromise on none of them. That you find statistics "meaningless" and there only "to promote the stadium" I hav explained numerous times with no response other than another deletion of the material. I have 2952:) when it suits argument, but does not appear to have an appreciation of what these things mean." I have a very clear idea what they mean. That I disagree with you (or you disagree with me) as to what they mean is one reason we have talk pages in the first place: to calmly hash these disagreements out. 4004:

Marvelous,(131.44.121.252 belongs to the US Government), my hard earned tax dollars at work. Well, from what I see, if you preface your edits with disclaimer statements, and wikilawyer enough policy links, you can do whatever you want around here. Is there anything you endear more than winning on a

3986:

Well you prefaced that statement with an allegation of me stalking you, specifically: " I am concerned with his attitude and would like your feedback regarding his edits, most recently on the Kyle Field talk page. He has made numerous misquoted, misleading, hostile, and threatening statements, to try

3913:

with some bizarre arguments, and then refused to ever back down or concede a single point on anything. The last thing we need is another administrator with a high-handed, arrogant attitude who refuses to back down. Sorry. If you're going to fight to the death over frankly bullshit no one cares about,

3908:

in a sense, and will argue, fight, wikilawyer, and respond to anything and everything with a literal essay. You must have a lot of spare time to work on Knowledge (XXG) at your job. Most people, to be frank, aren't going to trade essays with you, especially when you get pretty damn testy. He may have

3588:

come to mind off the top of my head. These are not merely "happened" to be codified, but are the results of hundreds of editors and a community consensus. Violations of these policies can have more than an academic effect and can create real harm. Rules here on Knowledge (XXG) are intended to prevent

3384:

My opposition is not based on the "three-month rule", rather it is based on your response to the concerns raised with regard to that "rule". The impression I get is that you are arguing "well, it's not a hard-and-fast rule so it doesn't count" whereas the better response would be along the lines of -

3336:

have been aware enough of RfA process to know about customary time frames, where he's really straying from the path is in failing to do the simple, sensible thing. "Shut up and soldier" is a line I remember vividly from my own days in uniform. "I wasn't aware of that and I'll remember that for next

3061:

is that I am of that philosophy, not that it is policy or a guideline. You have made no effort to compromise and I have made several changes and offers. To call my actions ridiculous... If you were trying to "avoid the edit war", why did you insist on making changes without discussing them? I offered

3042:

Even though it is your userpage, that does not give you the right to call others "tards" (which itself is highly demeaning to the mentally disabled) based on their college affiliation. Some might say I'm taking a joke too literally, but as an administrator you would have to withstand the same sort of

2996:

1357:

In short, I re-renounce any support of said image for use outside of the article page (since it would fall under Knowledge (XXG)'s fair use rules). Since editors in the article page don't want it there, it has no viable fair use and should not be on Knowledge (XXG) unless consensus changes otherwise.

799:

The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged

691:

is not a policy, it is a good guideline which I felt I followed to the letter and with its intent in spirit. If you disagree, I have still taken steps to ensure that any residual feedback from those friendly notices (that's how I intended them) was mitigated and made assurances that I will not repeat

4747:

I think this editor has the potential to be a great admin but I am a little concerned with his ability to over explain his actions. I think an admin should be able to make a point in a few words and make them pointed enough that the readers get the point. No need to be defensive. I would like to see

4201:

So, during your RfA, while all are watching, you decide to incite a side show, bringing it to center stage by egging on CC. You are clearly building up an ammo dump for potential use against your foe. It does not matter if you pull the trigger. The build up is an act of aggression in itself. You

4110:

I feel you may have over-interpreted my comments. I certainly don't advocate giving people adminship just because of their RL occupation, or giving them any extra privileges because of it. The opposers all have valid opinions, to which they're perfectly entitled. My objection was only on the grounds

4096:

Without levying any such accusation myself, Lawrence is spot-on ... quite aside from the obvious fact that serving members of the military have been guilty of far worse traits than immaturity. Beyond that, Knowledge (XXG)'s been stung quite badly enough over incidents where people were given passes

4070:

What people do professionally "IRL" has no bearing on this. RFA's role is to assess if a candidate is likely to abuse the tools, or if Knowledge (XXG) will benefit from their being admins. That includes frank assessment of on-Knowledge (XXG) behavior. The assessment by Bearian appears to be based on

3571:

rules are based on that common sense. IAW (In accordance with" is simply a way for me to succinctly state that a policy/guideline/opinion from an essay applies in a particular instance. I am ready to leap headfirst into things and take action (such is the nature of the military...why would anyone be

3214:

applies here on this one, especially when the "rule" isn't really a rule. Opposition because someone else said "wait three months" doesn't mean I disrespect them, but their opinion isn't defined or well-explained. "I want to see more edits before I support" makes sense if there is another reason for

3095:

This is a light-hearted response intended to diffuse the situation with humor. I honestly mean that I am sorry that word was used on my page and I will NEVER use it again...ever! For the record, my sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and my dad's cousin went to Texas Tech and I pull for them almost every

2909:

can edit and our edit histories are an open book. You can see everything I do and vice versa. If you do something that piques my interest, I might go and see what else you have done. I'm entitled/enabled to do so as is any other editor. Under that logic, I could just as easily accuse you of stalking

2283:

edit reveals it is an Associated Press photo and "needs to be deleted", but the PD tag was not removed and the image was never deleted, though I recently tagged it as missing source and license. That image should have been tagged immediately by the uploader and deleted months ago. A half dozen or so

1716:

I don't think this RfA will pass, but I think generally that BQ has good admin potential and I agree that falling afoul of guidelines and customs is not generally an appropriate RfA-killer. I opposed on the last one because I personally thought that canvassing had occurred, intentionally or not, and

1496:

The question is itself obvious, we all know what the user space is for(and I could care less that you tie up a kb or 2 with personal matters). Your answer though tells us worlds of info on whether you are the type of individual that would say "Your right, I'll fix that right away", or an individual

167:

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

3830:

on A&M related articles. In fact, I did it earlier within this RfA. You keep shrugging that off saying that because you disagree with somebody (and then revert all their edts) doesn't mean you own the article and that we must somehow be misinterpreting your actions or that policy. Well, I'm not

3764:

Um, yes you can. The image does not meet the fair use requirements, but I suppose you will not accept that unless/until A&M sends a C&D letter, as other universities have already done, and demands the image be removed. They own the image. They can legally refuse to allow anyone to use it

3513:

per many reasons above. Not does only a new self-nomination so soon after the previous RfA show questionable judgment, it shows insufficient patience, and we need both from our administrators. Also, I should think that someone who says he wants to focus on 3RR would have been more involved with 3RR

3086:

As for "tard," I always took it as a bastardized form of "turd" (think "turd" with a Texas drawl) as do most of my extended family. I will be happy to let them know about this interpretation. Seeing as how that offensive meaning is attached to the word, I have removed it accordingly (seriously, all

3023:

Your edits seemed to be directed in a way that would prevent me from making any changes to this encyclopedia and would thus drive me away from editing in frustration or fear. I don't know if you've done this in the past but again, this certainly is not the type of behavior anybody would expect from

2672:

The OR aspect is that it was a wikipedia user's impression. If it had been an artist concept provided by the architect planning the expansion, then there would have been no problem. I don't think the photo depicted wraparound seating, it was the same as the linked image except the grand stands were

1809:

support. Splendid article contributions and ability to collaborate outweigh any other lack of experience concerns. Opposing simply because it is "too soon" is just instruction creep. My only plea would be that the candidate remember that this is a free content encyclopedia and take much better care

441:

You have suggested that you have an interest in working with vandals and disruptive users. The procedures for warning and blocking vandals are well known. My question to you is: In what situations do you feel that its necessary to deviate from the outlined procedures? Under what circumstances to do

405:

In general, I intend to give vandals fair warning (several warnings on the user page with a ramped up intensity). If they are a user who shows no intent of slowing down despite numerous warnings, then they should be blocked. If someone is a registered user with a long edit history, I intend to give

150:

way did I ever intend to bias the process, only to let users I knew that I was applying to be an admin and that their feedback was appreciated. While some debate remains on this issue (see the talk page), I am resubmitting this time with no notifications whatsoever. Hopefully, together, we can come

4690:, which has me questioning why he wants the tools so badly. Still, he really looks like a great editor, and definitely looks like admin material. Just wait a few months instead of a few weeks, work on the concerns mentioned by the opposes above, and I see no reason why you won't succeed next time. 4497:

In the context it was entirely appropriate, not to mention funny and apt, and a good commentary on the frequent abuse of IAR. "Inflammatory" does not mean "something which I don't like". An inflammatory caption would have been something like "Burn all homosexual foreign people!" or "Kill Admin X!"

3572:

surprised at that), but action can be various things including discussing and diffusing a situation. By calmly explaining something to someone, you can expand their knowledge on how things work here on Knowledge (XXG) and, hopefully, make this a better place (see Mr. Schmidt and his history above).

3536:

to write down as a record of generally accepted practice. They're not binding rules, like a US Penal Code or military code. Societal norms, however, do tend to be enforced more than rules here. In fact, I'd wager that societal norms are more important than rules. How you conduct yourself is of 100

3362:

As an example, what should I do if someone says I shouldn't apply for 5 years? Should I not apply for 5 years because it shows "impatience"? If I do apply, will people object because I "didn't listen to the community"? This seems like unnecessary instruction creep and I dismissed it because I felt

3289:

the community can't always agree. Flexibility and judgement are paramount here. The "three-month rule" seems to be a fairly well-defined consensus, as the objections above seem to reflect, and the candidate should have been more well-prepared to address that. Addendum, as a law student (you), well

3241:

Having read this thread to date, I'm sure RFA is stressful but BQZip01 is "certainly aware that appearances matter" and yet is becoming quite argumentative before even being challenged over an admin decision. "I saw little reason to wait 3 months", "you aren't the boss of me and you don't make the

3038:

Let me start by saying the references to your posts under an IP were not meant to be accusatory or infer that you were trying to hide your identity. They were only meant to establish which post I was talking about. You have previously posted as that IP with your name following it, so again I'm not

2992:

2845:

First, I'm not sure I appreciate being mocked. Secondly, my issue is not that he supports his university, but that he takes strong, reactionist measures when somebody does something he doesn't like to one of the articles associated with Texas A&M. If he would simply revert the edit, that's one

1322:

further limits fair use images and I addressed that later on. I still disagree that this particular image could have been duplicated for a number of reasons (see the IfD and the answers to your questions above for details). Furthermore, I personally removed the image from my user page as soon as I

537:

minimum, its presence must significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic/omission would be detrimental to that understanding, are ONLY allowed in the mainspace of articles, and attribution/copyright info/fair use rationale for each instance. If this answer is not sufficient, I will be

250:

and its day as the Featured Article. Initially, I handled it well, but as time wore on, it quickly devolved into rehashing the same argument over and over (on both sides). Quite frankly, that experience wore me out. However, I quickly realized that a speedy response wasn't necessary, no matter how

3531:

Moving from neutral. Sorry, BQZip. Your very argumentative and overly procedural take on everything here has soured me on this a little bit, along with the "your not the boss of me" commentary, and this constant tone of admins being authority figures or cops, in a sense. Worship of policy for the

3441:

argument; you could, with exactly as much justification, ask what you should do if someone told you you had to pimp out Dobermans to pass an RfA. That aside, you're not trying to be argumentative? Of course you are. You're pumping out lengthy self-justifications at every step now, and while it

3358:

s. There clearly isn't a consensus on such a "rule". Again, I would be remiss if there were such a "rule", but there isn't. That there is a "custom", I recognize, but I do not agree with it. Opposing strictly on an opinion about an opinion seems to run counter to . "You aren't the boss of me" was

2320:

Too soon after the last time. Admins needs to be good judges of community consensus. Like it or hate it, there is long standing consensus that failed RFA candidates need to put a significant gap between requests - generally 3 months. Disregarding this or not doing your research to understand this

1872:

I have found this editor to be a calming and concerned voice of reason. In a disagreement between myself and another, far more experienced editor, BQZip01 stepped into the fray and was the voice of wisdom and moderation. His Adminship would be very positive for Knowledge (XXG). He is an excellent

673:

policies or guidelines. That someone comes into a discussion and doesn't know them, it should not be held against them. Furthermore, I would question the validity of anyone opposing based on a "custom" that isn't codified anywhere and exists only in a limited community (While "we've never done it

668:

I think it was any of the above one or a combination them. For those that thought it poisoned the process, I would have been happy to mitigate any such responses by annotating as to whom I requested review the nomination; weight on their opinions could have given accordingly in the review. As for

3942:

your grievances with other users over a content dispute is highly inappropriate and, again, not the actions of an administrator. You should resolve your disputes with other users -even if you don't like some of their answers- and you shouldn't start lobbying for administrator support anytime you

3321:

be used to justify a controversial action or to circumvent consensus. To address another of your points: yes, this is a wiki, but any large and organised community inevitably has to have rules, otherwise we would have anarchy (which would not be conducive to writing a good encyclopedia). I would

3266:

I think what he was saying, with regard to the police analogy, is that rules need to be clear and precise, otherwise people can't be expected to follow them; neither judges, nor juries, nor police, nor any other officer of the law should be making up rules on a whim. As a law student, I strongly

3205:

follow lawful orders or it is illegal and I could face criminal charges. Your analogy is lacking substance. "It was your job to know" isn't policy or a guideline, it is an opinion of a user(s). While repeated self-noms over and over ad nauseum is somethign to avoid, I saw little reason to wait 3

3004:, and specifically your reverts to my edits, are what raise the biggest alarms for me. You continually try to include meaningless statistics in that article to promote the stadium and you have thus far ignored the input from both myself and the (few) editors who responded in the RfC. Your use of 448:

I feel this is a bit of a trick question because there are no specifics. You are asking me to speculate on what I would do in an vague situation. A concrete answer is not possible in this case. In general, I simply would do what I thought was right. If shown to be wrong, I would simply revert my

3304:

I absolutely agree that the community is the boss; and that is why those rules which are laid down by the community, in the form of policies and guidelines, are binding and should be followed. However, a convention, such as waiting 3 months between RfAs, is not binding because it does not enjoy

1281:

Eh... you cannot use a free image as fair use. Technically, that's impossible... As for the article link, sure you can do it, but it'll lead to ugly lawsuits. One case does not justify its use in US law. And if it is used as a fair use image, you would hardly use it on your userpage would you?

1009:

policy enforcement especially when you are making one of those decisions on an article or project they are passionate about. How do you think you would handle an editor who is just as passionate about thier edits and making sure that they are not discouraged through your administrative role and

3305:

community consensus. If anyone proposed making it a formal rule, it is likely that there would not be a consensus to do so. It should be noted that there are several supporters in this RfA who explicitly reject the three-month "rule" as a formal rule (I and many others regard it as unnecessary

628:

and a lack of detail in question 1. Since this appeared to be the primary problem, I decided to wait a few weeks and reapply, this time with a much expanded answer to question 1 and no requests (in fact bending over backwards to prevent any accusations along those lines). Additionally, certain

229:

is one of my proudest Knowledge (XXG) contributions. I have also done my best to review other articles for FA status; though I am not always as tediously thorough as I once was, I certainly have added to the FAC process as much as I could. Additionally, I have been trying recently to have more

3728:

For the seal, as I have now noted in response to your question on the talk page, the quote does not come from an internal memo, but from the very page someone downloaded that seal from in the first page. A&M could very easily have legal grounds for a law suit if we run around using their

3614:

Update to strong oppose in response. Sorry, BQZip, but you just don't get it. And no, I have no problem with cops, since I have them in my immediate family, along with quite a few military. None of them have this high-handed tone that you appear to carry, where your views appear iron-clad and

3171:

not just knee-jerk application of (widely interpretable) policy. One could easily infer from your statement that you hold the process in some measure of contempt. It's somewhat startling given your profession; you cannot, as a member of the military, be unaware that appearances matter, that

3690:

solutions and compromises which seem to have fallen on deaf ears. While your discussion of the seal and its usage is certainly valid, an internal memo (I admit I'm making an assumption here since I don't know where you got your quote) does not apply to Knowledge (XXG). Furthermore, the image

1497:

that when confronted would wili-lawyer, attack the messanger and divert the question. This whole RfA process is about 'snatching the pebble from our hand' grasshopper. Don't restle for the stone, come here with the right attitute and skills and you'll quickly be allowed to claim the prize.

1338:

image on Knowledge (XXG) and it should be deleted. Furthermore, I will remove the image from my sub-user page. If a fair use reason for it comes up for it in the future, it can always be re-uploaded. I would like to reiterate that I still believe this was a tagging error, not a violation of

3566:

merit here as an example of a measure of authority, though in many cases adminship is more like being a judge (you make decisions based upon the best available information and dole out punishments). If you don't like cops, sorry. No argument is intended (see above). Common sense drives us,

3389:

the concerns raised at my last RFA. Preferably you would be able to do that in a succinct form (i.e. don't talk as long as I do!) as I believe that is another important quality for a sysop. I think the lesson you could take away from this is the need to develop a more flexible attitude in

3804:

article (sort of a requirement to be a subpage)" mean? If you are saying that parts of the bonfire leadership aren't mentioned, I invite you to re-read that article again as "redpots" are mentioned numerous times and linked to this page, as are several other leadership-associated links.

3685:

doesn't apply here, IMHO. Just because I disagree with an editor and revert his changes does not mean I am exerting ownership. I have worked with many editors to improve many different articles. I own none of them. It is the senseless deletion of material I disagree with. I have offered

292:" A block is the primary mechanism by which a ban can be enforced if a user does not abide by a partial ban or has been banned from Knowledge (XXG) altogether. If this does not answer your question, I would be happy to expand to include further details (who can block, who can ban, etc.) 501:

and the semi-automated peer review. I use Twinkle to help do reverts quickly and the semi-automated peer review to help review FACs (including my own). As an admin, I would be more interested in closing requests/acting upon the results and preventing edit wars/vandalism through blocks,

4120:

He has acted immaturely and so was rightfully opposed for doing so. It doesn't matter what his occupation is and frankly I think he could use a reality check instead of constantly trying to fall back on his position with the Air Force to justify his behavior in an online encyclopedia.

2169:

If modification of a fair use image is not appropriate, then please remove the image altogether, but I'm pretty sure I am in the right here under U.S. law (...and yes, I know that U.S. law does not necessarily apply to Knowledge (XXG), but it certainly applies to the creation of said

4256:

per many of the reasons above, especially immaturity. Admins frequently make mistakes, and when they realise they have made one, they are expected to correct it. From what I have seen here I am afraid that far from identifying his mistakes and acting accordingly, only the fact that

2629:

is similar if I remember correctly. Only the image in question was photoshopped to add additional seating levels at left and right. It was not listed as fair use / non-free, but was noted that it was edited to show a theoretical expansion concept which is the OR part of it.

879:

is entitled to his/her own opinion and can object for any reason. In the FA, you can object to an article becoming an FA, but you need to give a correctable reason that is part of the requirements for an FA. If you object because you don't like someone, your opinion will be

406:

them a warning of my own (as an admin) before blocking, unless actions are egregious. I am also not above conversing with vandals if there is a dispute. In such a case, I would request another admin come in for a second look and review my actions. In short, fair, but tough.

4060:

This isn't a challenge to your oppose, but I don't think you should refer to an officer in the United States Air Force as having "demonstrated immaturity". You have every right to oppose an RfA candidate, but please show some respect to those who are serving their country.

3331:

Given the many Oppose votes on the grounds of timing alone, it's somewhat odd to claim that there's no "community consensus" or rule involved; of course there is, and you're seeing it in action. That being said, while part of my Oppose was based on the notion that BQZip01

1076:

Absolutely. This page currently exists as a repository of information regarding a certain editor whom I have found to be disruptive, not acting in good faith, hostile, etc. Right now it exists solely as a place to organize my thoughts. Perhaps it may be used for an RfC,

2790:

While I can understand why some might be offended by the jokes on BQZip's userspace, and I particularly don't care for the "sand fleas" comment, I think they're intended to be good natured and in the spirit of college rivalry. He was one of a few who contributed to the

931:

I will likely continue my editing, perhaps working the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets article into an FA, who knows, preventing disruptive edits of articles on my watchlist through reverts and warnings, working with others to improve articles, putting my two cents in at

3337:

time" shows, hrm, much better judgment and maturity than "You're not the boss of me." I'm seeing even less reason than before to promote; someone who's truculent and argumentative in his own RfA isn't likely to be any less so when the spotlight isn't focused on him.

914:

In short the process is so nebulous and arbitrary with little oversight that it seems to be a free-for-all and people can choose to object or oppose on a whim (though their opinions matter, if they are supporting or opposing for frivolous reasons, it should clearly be

502:

semi-protecting, etc. As a Computer Science major, I feel my technical competence is sufficient to learn how to use many admin tools. I will use them as necessary, but I can always resort to using manual methods. I am open to any advice as to how to use certain tools.

3082:

So, for all this said, let's bury the hatchet right here and now. Let's come up with a way to make the Kyle Field article work. I would be happy to discuss a change to Kyle Field. Let's use this as a starting point from which to make a compromise, agreed? Make me an

3074:

My edits are directed in stopping unnecessary deletions, not to drive you away. I am sorry if you find this frustrating, but please realize the policies on Knowledge (XXG). If you have no intent on compromising or discussing, then the talk pages are useless (as is

674:

that way before" is certainly something that may raise eyebrows, it doesn't mean it is "wrong", but that it goes against the norm. That isn't necessarily bad and perhaps the "custom" needs to be changed or written down in a guideline/policy). The discussion on the

1930:

BQZip has shown he is dedicated to making Knowledge (XXG) what it should be and is continuing to learn as, hopefully, we all are. I think this second RfA coming so quickly after the first is just an indication that he is willing to learn from his mistakes (namely

3008:

is particularly ridiculous in this instance, since I was trying to avoid the edit war that would cause with the RfC, which you continue to ignore. This is another case of you misusing an essay (not even a guideline or a policy) to further your own ends in that

3914:

are you going to be as absolutely open-minded and constantly calm, civil, reasonable, and open to having your stances and viewpoints turned around with good simple arguments as administrators need to be in their highly stressful roles? Turn down the attitude.

126:

My recent edit history (check the September-November timeframe) has given me more insight into the RfC and dispute process. While attempting to prevent vandalism, I was caught up in an edit war over a subject on which I was an expert. While I was blocked for

3667:, and does not show signs of having the patience or necessary skills to handle disagreements in a diplomatic fashion. Perhaps with more experience (and waiting more than 3 months), he will grow into an admin ready editor, but I do not feel he is there yet. 4654:

Far too soon after the earlier RfA, and therefore demonstrating a lack of appreciation of the general advice from the community previously. I shall not oppose since I see no evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools when they eventually get them.

3615:

immutable. I can't support someone who seems to be willing to fight tooth and nail over every damn little thing. We don't need brawlers as admins, let alone high-handed ones. From my experience, they make the worst admins. The more humble, the better.

3720:

Fixed my typo. The quotes indicate none of the above, other than that I felt it wasn't a real explanation backed by policies or guidelines, only a claim that it was a subpage while in the same sentence nothing the topic isn't even covered in the

3579:

to write down as a record of generally accepted practice. They're not binding rules." On the btrary, they are the framework by which Knowledge (XXG) runs. Some rules are indeed as binding within Knowledge (XXG) as are laws and prevent real harm:

2945:). That I disagree with you on some of your edits and some discussion followed...well, isn't that the point of having a discussion on a talk page or the articles for deletion page? I wasn't the only one who felt your edits were not appropriate. 2719:

to my own, which touched off a lengthy dispute between several of the editors involved. User is fiercely protective over articles he has edited and generally opposes the inclusion of any information he deems insulting or derogatory towards his

3206:

months because someone said, "try back again in 3 months"...(a few weeks later) "You can't take directions from me! Oppose." Respectfully, you aren't the boss of me and you don't make the rules. Tacking on extra time for no apparent reason is

562:

and a free use image is not available. That said, the image in question does not meet the requirements to be in Knowledge (XXG) (doesn't have an article in which it can be used) and should remain removed at this time unless consensus changes.

2480:

What I meant to say was: The candidate appears to spend more time in arbitration trying to win points than he does trying to resolve the problems. My apologies to those offended by my 1st edit. Corrective action was administered on my talk

2145:

20 days is not enough time for me to judge improvement from the problems that had arisen from the previous RfA. Sure you may have improved within the time, but I wish to see consistency in the improvement for a few months, not a few weeks. —

131:, I know more about the policy now and have not violated it since (nor have I ever been blocked for violating any other policy). Additionally, in hindsight, some of my actions (which I hereby renounce) may be seen as inappropriate, though my 3699:

saying we want to go down that road, but I'm talking in theory here. I think the tone of your AfD speaks for itself by calling what I typed an "explanation". The quotes indicate that you are being sarcastic and somewhat uncivil, or at least

3246:

the objections before the next go-round. Surely addressing the concerns of the community with logic and brevity is better than arguing about what "isn't really a rule". Using the police analogy doesn't really help either, remember cops only

2959:

for the unblock of a prolific sockpuppeteer as long as he "renounced his behavior." This does not reflect the behavior of an administrator and he would not have my confidence in that capacity," (see above for IP info), are we supposed to

678:

following my last RfA leads me to believe the issue of "canvassing" or "friendly notices" is not clear cut and that a middle ground likely exists. I do not believe such actions demonstrated a lack of understanding of any policies because

3390:

understanding what the opposing view is and developing an appropriate response, rather than becoming argumentative about the question itself. That's just my opinion and I don't want to beat you up over this - good luck in the future!

529:" The ten big reasons an image may be used are: no free equivalent, respect for commercial opportunities, minimal usage/minimal extent of use, previous publication, meets general Knowledge (XXG) content requirements/is encyclopedic, 3858:

Your implication that only unreasonable people agree with me ("a reasonable person would see a pattern of reverts at A&M related articles that is indicate of somebody who has assumed ownership over those works.") is uncivil,

1004:

As you can see, sometimes as an editor it is very difficult for others to see or feel empathy through our edits and remarks. As an admin it is even more difficult for others to know what you are feeling when making a decision on

4410:

Self-promotion? You have got to be kidding. Other than the caption on my user page and the description on the image page, I have never identified myself as the cadet in that photo. I'm doing a pretty poor job of promoting it...

4376:"Patently offensive user name", just because BQ, standing for "Band Qualified", was apparently in the past colloquially used to mean "Band Queer"? Good God. Political correctness has really got out of hand in this encyclopedia. 661:

Do you think the opposition based on canvassing in the prior RfA came because opposers thought it poisoned the process, or because they thought it demonstrated a lack of understanding of important policies and observed customs?

4507:

I agree on that count ... but WTF, someone who wants to be an admin maintaining an attack page on his userspace? If you have bad things to say about an editor, file a RfC, take it to his talk page; there are avenues. Wow.

2974:

he changed his attitude and editing. I do not support his return otherwise. Mr. Schmidt (support above) is one such editor who was extremely hostile. Once someone (me) took the time to explain the process, things were fixed.

3193:. The values and customs of my profession are interwoven within the job, have a historical and practical base. They are also explicitly codified (how to salute, what the uniform should look like, etc). It isn't ambiguous in 2301:

which was PD by User:Jacobst, but the cropped image did not link the original and the author not mentioned as a courtesy. Even after the fuss over images at the last RFA, these problems were not corrected prior to this RFA.

2092:, sorry to be the first to comment, and an oppose at that, but it has been less than a month since your last RFA, I don't see that as long enough to wait. Again, sorry, and you do not have a lot of admin related tasks, and 1532:"Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." 442:

you feel that it is necessary to block users without having exhausted the steps of warning? I'm not asking for you to go through and research rules on this either - I'm asking for you own words and thoughts on this matter.

883:

I think the RfA process as it is currently structured allows for retribution for perceived wrongs. If I am in a discussion with someone and they think I am wrong, the entire discussion can be brought here, not to the talk

3771:

so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Knowledge (XXG) or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the

3280:

give you 24 hours to get your headlight fixed if you say you didn't know it was broken, unless you're driving an obvious wreck - where's that in the "rules"? And this is Knowledge (XXG) - what about the explicit rule to

1784:"rule" is for admin candidates that don't have enough experience in my opinion; Also in my opinion, it's not for those that get caught up in RfA rule creep (and over a rule that isn't a rule no less, and does not have a 369:

Additionally, and in a more general sense, I think I have helped an entire class of users, specifically those trying to get an article to FA status. By helping them beef up their articles and writing a guide describing

2607:

Without being able to see the image, it's somewhat difficult for me to assess these claims, but from reading the discussion it's clear to me what the fair use problems are, but not the original research problems.

3120:

Look, I was joking, as demonstrated by the smiley. I apologise if I caused any offence. Evidently I should stop trying to inject a note of humour into these discussions, as it seems to piss people off every time.

3729:

official seal on an article and no we can't just use it anyway when we know it isn't permitted. Fair use doesn't mean completely disregarding stated copyrights/trademarks where such use is explicitly forbidden.

798: 2879:

and I also made a friendly bet on the outcome of the annual game between our schools where we would "vandalize" out own user pages to let other people knwo how badly our team lost (I won and we had a laugh over

2292:

appear to be the same image, uploaded twice, and originally captioned with only "MC-130W image from www.af.mil" and "from www.af.mil" not giving proper credit to the photographer US Air Force Captain Andy Biro.

1346:". The tag was wrong on the image and its use should have been limited to the article. This was a mistake on my part not realizing the fair use implications at the time I uploaded it. Since those weighing in on 154:

Several people opposed because of "a vague answer to" Question 1, without bothering to ask any additional questions. I would have been happy to expand my answer upon request; I have expanded my initial response

4332:

Your patently offensive user name , redacting of comments, agrumentative edits for the sake of winning your points, and selfpromotion thoughout the encyclopedia are among the reasons that you should not seek

2406:- -you seem like a good editor on the whole but the image issues mentioned above bother me, as do some issues from the 1st RFA - I need a longer period of time to be sure of your familiarity with policies. -- 4532:

issues, poor understanding of policy, maintaining an attack page on another editor... not the sort of attitude I would want to see in an admin. User needs more experience learning to work collaboratively.

193:. I will also continue to monitor pages in which I have an interest for edit warring and disruptive editing. I will NOT block a user with whom I have a disagreement, but will report it to the appropriate 3251:

charges, it is the judge who pronounces sentence; admins are often cops but always judges. Furthermore, what is wrong with testing your patience? Is that not an important quality in a prospective admin?

3062:

a few alternatives to which you (or anyone else) didn't respond. It seems as if you are making continual changes with no intent on listening to what others have to say or offering any form of compromise.

764:

section, though it ebbs and flows from week to week. I would intend to go through and act upon violations placing blocks where appropriate and explaining why others weren't blocked (i.e. no violation of

4598:

You definitely care about Knowledge (XXG), but it's probably too soon after the last RFA. My only concern is that I'm a stickler for deep sourcing on articles, to make sure they're ultra-compliant with

2274:

I don't believe this user would abuse the tools. However handling of image copyright issues as noted above and a second self-nom so soon after the last one prevents me from adding support at this time.

3774:" A university seal gives the impression of endorsement and the use of it creates very reasonable grounds for complaint by the university has it violates their stated copyright/trademark guidelines. 2593:

Doesn't understand the issues with his Kyle Field image beyond fair use (the image was clearly original research, and not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG)). Administrators need to know image policy.

1027: 3990:

You've now reaffirmed that allegation here, which goes a long way to demonstrate all the very good reasons that you aren't ready to be an administrator and likely won't be for a very long time.

2735:

on his user page. User still maintains a list of demeaning terms for neighboring colleges on his user page, among them "tech tards, sand fleas." User selectively employs various protocols (like

2430: 2743:

for the unblock of a prolific sockpuppeteer as long as he "renounced his behavior." This does not reflect the behavior of an administrator and he would not have my confidence in that capacity.

2677:

in the article simply said "Artist's rendition of an expanded Kyle Field", and didn't mention that the artist is a wikipedia editor, not an architect or engineer paid to make such a drawing. --

225:

on the main page. As a user with less than 7000 edits, less than a year of experience, and a full-time job, having 2 articles of which I was a substantial contributor featured on the main page

2860:

You'll notice I've only responded to a few issues down here, but I believe these comments deserve some moderation since so many things are being said about me that are incorrect or misleading.

3660: 3659:

as to why we should have not official university seals up in articles, and should have a better understanding of image related issues. He also seems quick to assume bad faith, as shown in a

3242:

rules" - I've only been watching RFA for a few months and I've gotten the drift that consensus is to wait three months to try again, more importantly, make sure that you've solidly addressed

3139:

Possibly the most important quality an admin must have is good judgment, followed closely by intimate knowledge of Knowledge (XXG) custom and practices. Anyone putting in/agreeing to an RfA

3743:

You cannot trademark something and prohibit fair use of said image, much like you cannot patent something and prohibit public knowledge of the device. This image meets all requirements of

1656:- User:Dreamafter says it's been less than a month since the last RfA. However, he seems solid in other aspects, including his ability to maintain his cool when he is in a heated dispute. 4620: 2191: 3309:). As to your other point; yes, we should apply some flexibility and discretion in the interests of avoiding unfairness, just as enforcers of the law do in real life. On the question of 1442: 777:: Why do you think that the 3RR rule exists, what do you thinks its purpose is? Do you think that blocking people for 3RR violations that they did in the past, in a backlog is useful? -- 2942:

even when I made perfectly appropriate edits as an IP (even if I wasn't logged in), you reverted them assuming malice and labeling it vandalism even when you realized it was a mistake

2792: 1523:

is correct. No, it doesn't apply, because the words "in general" are there for a very good reason. Since items 2-4 of the list obviously don't apply, how about the remaining item 1:

1434:. Given the date of its official adoption as the War Hymn of Texas A&M in the fall of 1920 (please realized it was also first played in a public performance long before that), a 558:

use a fair use image when a free image is available. I contend that, with flight rules in the U.S. after 9/11 and modifications to the stadium since that time, the image in question

3862:

You seem to read what you want to see without taking into account what is actually written through misquoting (see comments about the "Most intimidating venue" at the link below).

4143:

of my actions. If you have evidence of such an accusation, I suggest you post it here. Otherwise, I respectfully request you remove such a disparaging comment/veiled accusation.

3285:? It's not the armed forces and it's not the police force and it's not the legal system, it's a wiki, saying "you're not the boss of me" is a bad sign, the community is the boss 3185:

I am certainly aware that appearances matter. Application of policy can be widely interpreted, no doubt there. This is why I intend to stick to relatively obvious problems (like

2913:"This has a chilling effect on those editors and may discourage their contributions in this future." If you can't handle a discussion over an edit you made, then I am sorry. See 2321:

doesn't show the candidate in a good light. Shame because their contribution to the project is valuable and with a little more patience I would have been looking to support.

1525:"To place user page-appropriate content on a separate page in order to avoid having a large user page or merely not to conspicuously display it (for example an awards page)." 3054:"thus far ignored the input from both myself and the (few) editors who responded in the RfC." On the contrary, I responded to their inputs with little/no response from them. 2426: 2811:

And let me be clear that BQZip's list of insults on his userpage isn't the only reason I'm opposing his nomination, it's just another example of why this user isn't ready.

123:

pages. I would also use admin privileges to prevent edit wars as much as possible through semi-protecting/protecting pages before they get too badly into such a conflict.

4817: 3363:

so. Some people have said I should apply 3 months from the time of the original RfA. Will anyone object if I apply in 2 months and 12 days? I ask because it seems like a

3087:

you had to do was point this out on my talk page). I humbly and sincerely apologize to all mentally handicapped persons for comparing them to Texas Tech students...I was

2898:

As for "If he would simply revert the edit, that's one thing (though still incompatible with policy)..." Which policy might that be? I am personally of the philosophy of

1113: 135:

feelings about anyone actively editing my user page remain, and I vow never to repeat those specific actions as they do not reflect well upon myself or Knowledge (XXG).

3826:

and, if you want my advice, you should allow yourself to be more open to suggestions from others. This is not the first time that somebody has accused you of violating

3597:

policy and guidelines give the framework and boundaries within which to work. Without those boundaries, all day-to-day interaction has no boundaries and anything goes.

3479:

happen again for some other editor. Considering how many new objections there have been, finding out most of what everybody finds problematic will allow me to improve.

2828:

OMG, Walton. If an editor is placing "loyalty to his university" (or anything else) above the integrity of the encyclopedia, then they should certainly not be an admin.

3647:

per previous RfA, lack of experience, and no showing in his edits or his edit summaries that he had the necessary qualifications for be an administrator. He has shown

2279:

uploaded last May exemplifies the image problem. It was uploaded as PD-US with very little details as to author, date or other important details. Then 2 minutes later

240:

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?

4097:

over their purported real-life resumes. I'm quite happy with judging folks based on their conduct, deportment and efforts as I can see them on the computer screen.

3012:

As for your opposition to my edits, you keep trying to argue that we share a common interest in those articles, but I have to take issue with that, since you opposed

3416:

not supported by consensus. I am not trying to be argumentative, but attempting to clarify what seems to be a misconception. If I am to be judged on what I do/say,

2612:

makes it clear that images enjoy a broad exemption from OR, and I don't see why that wouldn't have been the case here had the source image been freely available. --

1729:

Although the opposers raise some valid points, I believe nom has learned from prior mistakes and will do OK. That said, I will mindlessly add, "when in doubt, ask".

1619: 2051: 903:

Fails RfAC (Request for Admin Criteria) . If the user can show she knows the difference between a copyvio and fair use, I will be happy to change my opposition.

1140: 1135: 1130: 4835: 986:, unless shown otherwise. I also think people should be leery of users who's edit history (of a grand total of 3 edits) consists of 2/3rds feedback on RfAs. 2363: 2284:

other images were uploaded with very little captioning information, though they were PD-USGov images, they did not provide sources or author information.

1125: 797:

The 3RR rule exists to prevent edit warring. It doesn't always work, but it is a speedbump that, we hope, stops things from getting out of hand. However,

593: 2060: 4180:...and this is why I have such a problem with your edits. I have never said I'm going to arbitration or anything else. It is a draft in my sandbox IAW 3385:

I recognize this is what the community generally expects, and here is why I think I have exceeded the community expectation and demonstrably addressed

1257:

image. I already stated I had no opposition to its removal and clearly admitted it was not labeled properly. Discussion in the IfD regarded its use as

1182: 282:

restraint on editing privileges (usually in response to a specific action, though other cumulative actions can be cause for a block too), while a ban "

2887:" and "he takes strong, reactionist measures when somebody does something he doesn't like to one of the articles associated with Texas A&M." are 2757:

You're opposing him for being loyal to his university and for participating in college rivalries? Good God... should I be desysopped for laughing at

1087:

There are several common uses for user subpages...3. To delineate views on Knowledge (XXG), its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general.

675: 1569:. Administrators have to be able to inspire trust, and BQZip01 does that for me, even though I may not agree with everything he's done or said. -- 4449:. It wasn't kept up, per consensus. However, somebody added an inflammatory caption. With this caption, it was later added it to the talkpage of 1070:? I haven't changed my support for you but have to confess that I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing even though it is just in user space. 2935:

logged in and responded as an IP, but that was because I was unable to log in at my location (and just so there is no mistake, I have made this

3024:

an administrator. You have a very long way to go in this regard and I would wait a lot longer than 3 weeks before your next self-nomination.

4637: 4314: 4085: 3973: 3928: 3629: 3551: 1169: 610: 111:

I would like to be an admin to further the goals of Knowledge (XXG) and prevent abuse/vandalism by editors. I intend to peruse the various

3725:

article (sort of a requirement to be a subpage). I also used quotes because I'd read your previous explanation after it was first prodded.

867:

In my humble opinion (and from my limited experience), I don't believe that the process has enough oversight or someone watching it. The

3215:

opposition (bad edits, copyvio, etc.), but "wait three months" for no apparent reason than they want to test patience, makes no sense.

1212: 30: 17: 4554: 2863:

On top of what Wordbuilder said, where does a simple editorial comment in the spirit of a good-natured rivalry constitute a breach in

2383:

Only three weeks since last RfA is not enough. Please wait at least three months and try again when you're ready, and I will support.

1206: 326: 4572: 3463:. I thought this place was for the former. Furthermore, and taking from the main RfA page, "If your nomination fails, please wait a 3290:

check out Newyorkbrad, another law-talkin-guy, I may be wrong but I haven't yet seen him mention "clear and precise rules". Cheers!

2294: 2042: 1607: 1545:

This is a very good demonstration of why being prepared to look up the rules is no substitute for having a grasp of their spirit. --

3769:

covers this area well. Particularly "It is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using their logo,

2327:

Striking oppose per discussion on my talk page. The candidate clearly didn't appreciate the need to put a decent gap between RFAs.

1081:, or other administrative process, but its use is limited right now. It is placed there appropriately (and not somewhere else) IAW 891:

need not be codified, but a simple way to say there are actual criteria, not just "I feel...". This isn't exactly a vote, is it?):

887:

In short, I think the entire process should be moderated by a bureaucrat and specific criteria developed for nominations (Specific

3962:

I do NOT intend this as an attack of any kind on CC, merely an attempt to get feedback/guidance and see if I am missing something.

2883:

Your accusation that of "he is generally opposed to the inclusion of any information he deems insulting or derogatory towards his

1261:, not whether it was a free image. Please read the entire discussion for more information. Furthermore, using the article cited... 972:

Do you think that an individual that uses the encyclopedia as a web site for personal matters can be trusted with admin tools?

230:

patience with other editors and serve more as a facilitator of discussion to limit conflict and prevent/limit stress for others.

4698: 4442: 1176: 3016:

I did in those articles and undid most or all of the changes I tried to make. As for the comment about the IP, I have already

2673:

copy and pasted to make them double or triple stacked. I don't believe that type of modification was supported by a citation.

1109: 692:

such notices in the future in the interests of making the process as transparent as possible (see the answer to question #1).

3968:

actions involving our dispute. I made the mistake of this being your AfD; it was not. Just a simple mistake and I apologize.

3442:

does you no harm on this RfA to do so, I wouldn't bet a dime against a dollar on your odds of passing the next one thereby.

1690: 3794: 2739:) when it suits his argument, but does not appear to have an appreciation of what these things mean. User (as IP) has also 3910: 1229: 1162: 91: 1463:

This page has been the source of so much discussion it simply isn't worth the time to argue over it, so I've removed it.

530: 3823: 3656: 2347: 2298: 2033: 1859:

for the same reasons that I did last time. I advise waiting at least a couple of months before your next try, though.

1450:- was written in 1924 by William J. Marsh, born in England but later emigrated to Texas, and Gladys Yoakum Wright, from 3020:

for those reverts -which you have previously acknowledged- so it seems strange to me that you would bring that up here.

1392:

Okay, valid question, I have not specifically called A&M or the government of the State of Texas for verification,

596:. Why so soon? What has changed in the past few weeks? In regards to your comment on my talk page, I am looking again. 3079:). As for fear, you seem to use policies to bully people into getting your way by threatening actions (AfD, RfC, etc.) 2425:. I'm impressed by the FA work, but I think a self-nomination only 3 weeks after a failed RfA and while subject of an 1989:. See it as a chance to practice a little more and be definitely back to collect your mop when you're fully prepared. 1286:". As said by B, a free image can be used in its stead; so it would hardly qualify for fair use in the first place. — 3987:

and get his way. He has carried this "technique" over to almost every major page I have touched. No end is in sight."

3160:"Good judgement" is subjective and I am of the belief that a knowledge and understanding of policy and guidelines is 2772:

I don't think anybody who refers to a group of people as "sand fleas" in their userspace should be an administrator.

978:

I would take "This page is exclusively designed to give people an insight as to interests during the holiday season"

449:

changes/rescind a block with a notation that I was in the wrong; almost all actions on Knowledge (XXG) can be undone.

2892: 247: 214: 4691: 2249:

Several people opposed because of "a vague answer to" Question 1, without bothering to ask any additional questions

1574: 3313:, I personally think it's counterproductive and often overused; insofar as it has any value, it should be used in 2965: 1455: 1435: 629:

answers were not as complete as they could have been, so I expanded the answers. I appreciate your consideration.

4571:

Struck vote as anons are not allowed to vote. Not to mention this editor was just blocked for harmful redirects.

2118:

I also oppose you because you're from the "Texas Aggies" and because I outrank you... MUHAHAHAHA...</joke: -->

1878: 1664: 1031: 925:

If you don't become an admin this time, what do you think you will do over the next 6 months on Knowledge (XXG)?

4660: 4631: 4612: 4308: 4171: 4126: 4079: 3995: 3977: 3948: 3922: 3836: 3623: 3545: 3043:

criticism from the entire userbase of this encyclopedia. Currently, I don't think you would be able to do that.

3029: 2997:

criticism from the entire userbase of this encyclopedia. Currently, I don't think you would be able to do that.

2851: 2816: 2777: 2748: 2438: 1766:

My persona interactions with this editor have been positive and I have no reason to oppose or remain neutral.--

604: 3537:

times more value than how you dotted your Ts, filled out your RFCs, and formatted the I's on your citations.

3455:

I am just trying to explain mischaracterized actions I feel are detrimental. There is a difference between a

872: 526:...they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Knowledge (XXG)'s own guidelines for non-free content. 399:

What will your approach on handling/blocking vandals and disruptive users? Fair but tough or what? Thanks.

3779: 3734: 3672: 3652: 2884: 2834: 2721: 2556: 2486: 2475: 2451: 1751: 1735: 1591: 1376: 848: 4163: 1932: 1067: 4558: 3317:

exceptional circumstances where applying the rules strictly would lead to an irrational result. It should

2412: 2259: 1959: 1717:

it would be hard to determine the effect on the result. Best, in my mind, to err on the side of caution.

1657: 1644: 812: 459: 371: 321: 4167: 4122: 3991: 3944: 3832: 3025: 2847: 2812: 2773: 2744: 1542:

editor who feels aggrieved by another might effortlessly bring up to justify maintaining an attack page.

158:

Several people asked questions on my last RfA. I have included them and my improved answers here as well.

4735: 4576: 4367: 4238: 3957:

Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote instead of taking what I stated out of context...again...

2910:

me here and discouraging my nomination, but I don't because everyone is allowed to give their two cents.

2800: 2732: 2285: 2017: 1994: 1940: 1570: 4816:

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

3775: 3744: 3730: 3668: 2829: 2289: 2276: 1746: 1730: 1225: 1156: 525: 85: 4801: 4775: 4752: 4739: 4721: 4705: 4686:

I really liked what I saw, up until attention was drawn to the fact that this his his second self nom

4678: 4664: 4643: 4580: 4562: 4542: 4516: 4502: 4488: 4445:) which seems to suggest that the role of SysOps is "policemen." Later, he tried to add this image to 4423: 4405: 4380: 4371: 4342: 4320: 4295: 4282: 4248: 4211: 4196: 4175: 4155: 4130: 4115: 4105: 4091: 4065: 4055: 4014: 3999: 3981: 3952: 3934: 3909:

simply given up debating with you, as many people are likely to do. You showed up the same way on the

3895: 3840: 3817: 3783: 3759: 3738: 3715: 3676: 3635: 3609: 3557: 3523: 3491: 3450: 3431: 3399: 3379: 3345: 3326: 3299: 3271: 3261: 3227: 3180: 3155: 3125: 3109: 3033: 2987: 2902:

Near as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with a discussion; it's one of the reasons for a talk page.

2855: 2839: 2820: 2804: 2781: 2765: 2752: 2686: 2665: 2639: 2621: 2602: 2580: 2560: 2546: 2528: 2511: 2490: 2461: 2442: 2417: 2398: 2375: 2357: 2331: 2311: 2266: 2239: 2220: 2203: 2180: 2154: 2135: 2112: 2077: 1981: 1944: 1922: 1902: 1882: 1863: 1851: 1834: 1814: 1804: 1772: 1756: 1740: 1718: 1707: 1695: 1669: 1648: 1631: 1610: 1595: 1578: 1554: 1506: 1475: 1387: 1370: 1294: 1276: 1046: 1014: 952: 789: 752: 641: 616: 575: 418: 332: 306: 146:

were out of line and misleading in the previous nomination. I asked for a review, and not support. In

106: 75: 4749: 4278: 4274: 4266: 4262: 2252: 2129: 2106: 1874: 1550: 1546: 1538:

an obvious case where the exception clearly applies. Instead, the proffered justification is such as

1396:

as a member of the Corps I was required to memorize who wrote them and when they did so. So, for the

1011: 994: 4797: 4787: 4441:

and would, at best, be useless as a SysOp, at worst, be corrupt. BQZip01 once created an image (see

3068:

Just because I opposed your changes doesn't make me wrong. To which other articles are you refering?

2394: 2384: 1788:

consensus anyway, as you point out). You have the experience and ran into opposition based on the

688: 625: 498: 143: 4792: 4673: 4656: 4625: 4538: 4302: 4073: 3916: 3617: 3539: 2725: 2682: 2635: 2434: 2389: 2307: 1627: 598: 359: 4412: 4394: 4185: 4144: 3969: 3884: 3806: 3748: 3704: 3598: 3480: 3420: 3368: 3216: 3098: 2976: 2517: 1464: 1359: 1265: 1152: 1105: 1035: 941: 851:

and the semi-automated peer review. I am certainly open to using others should I find them useful.

630: 564: 407: 294: 95: 81: 64: 4607:

in particular--to make sure people can always see exactly where a passage or fact is drawn from.

3939: 3519: 3395: 3295: 3257: 3057:

If you will read what I actually said (and this is a major problem in our discussions) regarding

2661: 2617: 2575: 2552: 2506: 2482: 2471: 2470:

Please don't give the mop to an idiot (no offense to candidate). At best it is a waste of a mop.

1799: 1678: 1587: 1023: 785: 748: 4761: 4450: 4446: 4258: 3855:

reverted all of anyone's edits except perhaps a few IP accounts with explicitly vandalous edits.

3766: 3364: 3306: 3207: 4269:) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC). Upgraded to "strong" after display of very poor self-restraint 3867:

I have acknowledged your contentions and have offered many compromises and solutions, but with

4484: 4338: 4207: 4051: 4010: 3194: 2458: 2407: 2216: 1767: 1640: 1502: 316: 4181: 2918: 2868: 1898:. That's a fine place to learn admin skills. Come back in four months, and you should pass. 1895: 1528: 1520: 1082: 983: 4730: 4363: 2796: 2598: 2542: 2371: 2352: 2073: 2013: 1990: 1936: 1847: 1830: 1811: 1604: 1447: 1056: 278:

I certainly can go into more detail if you desire, but the short version is that a block is

4529: 4438: 3827: 3682: 3648: 3581: 3310: 3282: 3211: 3190: 3186: 3076: 3058: 3005: 2961: 2949: 2914: 2899: 2736: 2703: 2645: 2609: 2551:

Unstruck as the above, at best is a gratuitous assertion, not to mention a personal attack.

2230: 2192:

Knowledge (XXG):Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_7#Image:Kyle_Field_Expansion.jpg

2093: 1891: 1823: 1439: 1397: 1340: 979: 937: 933: 766: 737: 733: 693: 375: 355: 283: 190: 186: 128: 120: 116: 4499: 4377: 4112: 4062: 3876: 3791:

The use of the seal does not automatically imply support any more than using the logo does

3323: 3268: 3122: 3047: 2762: 2160: 2122: 2099: 1918: 1704: 1262: 548:

In what situation are you allowed to use a fair use image when a free image is available?

4604: 2926: 1519:

The candidate's answer demonstrates poor reading comprehension. Yes, the text cited from

1327: 1258: 1078: 868: 761: 680: 194: 182: 112: 2698:

on a wide range of important issues. This user took personal issue with edits I made to

4534: 4509: 4288: 4098: 3460: 3443: 3338: 3173: 3164:

more important than the customs of a single administrative page out of 2 million plus.

3148: 2678: 2631: 2303: 2173: 2147: 1899: 1860: 1623: 1423: 1380: 1287: 428: 4600: 4470:

He removed comments from his talkpage, something that a lot of belligerent admins do.

3822:

This really isn't the time or place for this discussion. You should resume it back at

3585: 4829: 4616: 3801: 3722: 3515: 3475:

several months before reapplying." Without a definition of "reasonable" this problem

3391: 3291: 3253: 2657: 2626: 2613: 2569: 2500: 2235: 1810:

ofver copyright issues on images. But I will AGF that that lesson has been learned.--

1793: 1683: 779: 742: 719: 386: 218: 3593:

indeed more important in a day-to-day setting, conversation, and basic interaction,

3456: 3167:

Which bolsters my belief. Admins deal with the public and are expected to exercise

705:

Has anything changed since your last RfA that would mitigate the second view above?

4715: 4608: 4479: 4334: 4203: 4047: 4006: 2876: 2758: 2702:

and, to this day, continues to undo any changes I make to that article so that his

2455: 2328: 2322: 2212: 1953: 1498: 962: 3800:

What does "while in the same sentence nothing the topic isn't even covered in the

3695:

be used as a fair use image even if the University President doesn't want it. I'm

3065:

I oppose your changes because I believe they add context to the paragraph/article.

1375:

I was wondering if you have checked the copyright status of the lyrics present in

1006: 3575:

I could not disagree with you more that "ules are nothing more than what someone

2948:

Please tell us what you mean that I "selectively employs various protocols (like

2454:; you haven't read and taken in everything from your last RfA just weeks ago. -- 4261:

has been written down as a policy would prevent this user from wheel-warring. --

3276:

Well I suppose that is my concern, what rule really is clear and precise? A cop

2968:? I also didn't say I supported his edits, but that I supported him coming back 2594: 2538: 2367: 2342: 2297:

was uploaded as a government image sourcing himself. The image is a cropping of

2199: 2069: 1843: 1826: 1431: 1427: 909:

Candidate meets all criteria to a "T", especially #5. Makes me happy to support.

651: 350:: I am of the mentality that users should be not be "given a fish", but taught " 3703:

I have no idea what "editors editos ro edit summaries " means, please explain.

3201:

be at my own peril, but not because it is advice, but because it is the law. I

374:, many users now have concrete answers how to fix an article to meet technical 3681:

Collectionian, I am perfectly able and willing to listen and an accusation of

3664: 3404:

Fair enough, but "well, it's not a hard-and-fast rule so it doesn't count" is

3001: 2699: 2021: 1998: 1914: 1451: 1347: 1331: 1315:

Knowledge (XXG) policy, which is what I was trying to point out at the time).

259: 54: 4810:

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

3467:

period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination.

3871:

response from you or those who weighed in. I invite anyone who wants to see

3438: 1527:

Is the content in question appropriate? There is something very relevant in

1323:

saw it could be considered a fair use image and stated as such on the IfD: "

1284:

it certainly can be left on my user page and need not be deleted altogether.

344:

Can you name a specific time in which you have greatly helped another user?

222: 491:

What tools have you made extensive use of, and what did you do with them?

3845:...and this is the reason I am seeing your edits as increasingly pointy. 1335: 4528:

per a laundry list of reasons, including overly argumentative editing,

4390: 1299:

To put the comment in context, it was made in reference to the image's

138:

Several things in my previous failed nomination are important to note:

1326:

While I still think it is an appropriate image (not in violation with

1245:

In the IfD two people have mentioned I stated that the image could be

4820:

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

4786:

Very good answers to questions, but neutral per the oppose concerns.

2652:

original research, because he's not advancing new ideas, he's merely

2195: 226: 213:

My best contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are the following articles:

2565:

Restruct as per VandleBlaster's wish to do so stated on my talkpage

2247:

not been long enough since the last RFA and the comment up the top "

4495:"But officer... I was improving the integrity of the encyclopedia!" 1228:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 289:

revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Knowledge (XXG).

3901: 3765:

and they can legally state that the image shall not be used here.

2895:(addressed/renounced above), I defy you to find a single instance. 871:

process seems to run much smoother with a bit of moderation from

2921:. Furthermore, if contributions are disruptive, then opposition 1586:

I see no compelling reason not to give the candidate the tools.

57: 4760:- Switching from Support to Neutral, prefer not to take sides. 3143:

after the last one is guilty of lacking either or both. Three

168:

these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

4474: 683:(If you were trying to get me on a trick question, that was a 207:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?

3469:

Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month

1426:- Written by J.V. "Pinky" Wilson while standing guard on the 4621:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrator intervention against vandalism

1603:

I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be an administrator.

366:. I have received other such compliments in the FAC process. 272:

Could you explain the difference between a block and a ban?

3408:

the reason I chose to dismiss it, it is a fact that it is

2706:. In response, this user (both as an IP and as user) made 800:

and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others

2054: 2045: 2036: 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

940:, and working on admin coaching (already have a coach). 4471: 4468: 4457: 4454: 4360: 4357: 4355: 4352: 4350: 4348: 4270: 4139:

fallen back on my position in the Air Force to justify

3197:(pun intended). Furthermore, should I dismiss them, it 3017: 2956: 2941: 2891:

without merit. Baring my spat with a certain user over

2740: 2729: 2716: 2713: 2710: 2707: 2674: 2566: 2280: 2174: 2148: 2009: 2005: 1381: 1288: 1200: 1194: 1188: 363: 1534:

The candidate's answer has made it clear that this is

1307:

be used on Knowledge (XXG) in any capacity (this is a

861:

What, in your opinion, is wrong with the RfA process?

732:: You say that one of the things you will focus on is 3657:

Talk:Texas A&M University#Seal double explanation

2341:

I still have the same concerns as I did 3 weeks ago.

1677:- No reason to assume any problems with this editor. 1352:

it was rightly removed and I support that action 100%

538:

happy to expand/clarify; just please ask me to do so.

3418:

let's base it on what was intended, not speculation.

2570: 2501: 2121: 2098: 1794: 53:

Final (23/27/7); Originally scheduled to end 03:06,

2656:

someone else's ideas and clearly noting as much. --

2429:shows overeagerness and bad judgement. I also find 1873:example of all that is and can be good about Wiki. 897:

Fails RfAC (Request for Admin Criteria) , , , and .

624:The majority of the opposition seemed to stem from 115:pages and assist where needed, with a focus on the 3071:The IP thing, no problem. Just a misunderstanding. 3970:You don't need to comment on every comment I make 2499:This is "Vandleblaster's" first edit. Amazing. 4493:That was not an "inflammatory caption". It said 3350:Weighing in on the fray here, there are as many 1350:, and there was no use for the image elsewhere, 736:. What exactly do you intend on doing regarding 3797:and don't "suppose" anything. If in doubt, ask. 760:For a while, there was quite a backlog in that 517:When is the use of a fair use image justified? 175:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 2724:. Before he made this RfA, user deleted image 2576: 2507: 2364:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/BQZip01 1800: 4437:This user has a complete misunderstanding of 2939:clear to all involved in any discussion, but 8: 4300:That would have worked for me, at the time. 2871:, not an article. If you'll note, I mock my 1529:WP:USER#What may I not have on my user page? 1334:article, there is no longer a need for this 1330:), since it is no longer being used on the 4389:is in use and has been for some time. See 2190:poor policy understanding demonstrated at 4467:. I just saw a posting on RFC about him. 1910:Per previous interactions with the user. 694:No malice/votestacking/etc. was intended. 354:to fish". I have recently been reviewing 4463:of administrative authority, not now or 3788:Which fair use requirement does it fail? 3147:would be well to the left of too soon. 1224:Please keep discussion constructive and 3365:pointy punishment or a test of patience 1745:Doc and keeper put it quite well below. 1620:I think you made the same mistake I did 1521:WP:USER#How do I create a user subpage? 1490:Comment moved from above in question 18 1123: 523:A fair use image may be used provided " 3562:I used the cop analogy because it has 2644:I'm not seeing how that runs afoul of 1894:. You may also want to spend time at 1022:I suggest reading my contributions to 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 4748:a little more time between requests. 3589:such harm. That said, societal norms 2925:be present to discourage such edits. 2793:peer review for Texas Tech University 2537:Struck vote as a likely sock/vandal. 1935:in this case) and get back on task. → 681:no Knowledge (XXG) "policies" applied 7: 4798: 3904:you appear to be absolutely against 3875:what I am talking about to read the 3651:issues over any articles related to 3367:more than a valid reason to oppose. 2395: 2251:" to me suggests a lack of civility 2096:doesn't require you to be an admin. 1089:" This is the purpose for this page. 4836:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 4162:You didn't get your way, so you're 2646:Knowledge (XXG):NOR#Original images 2610:Knowledge (XXG):NOR#Original images 1121: 1066:BQ, can you explain the purpose of 584:Optional question by Lawrence Cohen 4456:BQZip01 approved of this caption. 2295:Image:V-22 main engine closeup.jpg 1956:, and this will come with time. 687:one. Nicely phrased! :-) ). While 181:I intend to work primarily in the 24: 4713:per Faithless and avoid pile on. 4459:Based on this, he deserves not a 3964:" This was a request to evaluate 3795:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith 3096:time aren't playing Texas A&M 2008:, too. Always useful, as someone 1348:the article felt it didn't belong 358:nominations. While there, I gave 142:I believe certain accusations of 2875:school's mascot on my page too. 1303:status. As a fair use image, it 1141:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4 1136:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 3 1131:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2 531:Knowledge (XXG):Image use policy 4443:Image:IAR doesn't mean this.jpg 2253: 2123: 2100: 780: 743: 720: 509:Optional questions by DarkFalls 372:how to get my support in an FAC 2955:As for "User (as IP) has also 2478:) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2450:for continuing to use WP as a 2228:per all the above concerns. -- 2163:images of copyright works are 2130: 2107: 1684: 1513:Comment concerning question 20 1126:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 1112:. For the edit count, see the 669:"observed customs", those are 1: 4763: 3824:Talk:Texas A&M University 2962:assume that no one can change 2299:Image:Osprey at Pensacola.jpg 2260: 1639:Just do it. Solid candidate. 1230:Special:Contributions/BQZip01 295: 227:within 100 days of each other 221:. Both have been featured as 4802:18:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4776:13:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4753:22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 4740:18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 4722:12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 4706:06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 4679:04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 4665:23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 4644:05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 4581:18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4563:18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4543:16:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4517:12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4503:09:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4489:00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4424:20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4406:15:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4381:09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4372:02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4343:14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4321:00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4296:00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4283:23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4249:08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4212:00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4197:23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4176:16:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 4156:23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4131:20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4116:19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4106:18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4092:17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4066:17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4056:17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 4015:18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 4000:19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3982:17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3953:08:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 3935:14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3896:07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3841:06:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3818:06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3784:06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3760:06:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3739:05:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3716:05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3677:02:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3636:14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3610:22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3558:14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3524:09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3492:23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3451:17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 3432:22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3400:22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3380:21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3346:14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3327:11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3300:09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3272:09:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3262:08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3228:06:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3181:06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3156:22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 3126:21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 3110:03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3034:00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 2988:00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 2856:20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2840:20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2821:15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2805:15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2782:15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2766:11:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2753:05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2687:21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2666:15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2640:12:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2622:05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2603:02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2581:20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2561:19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2547:09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2529:03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2512:23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2491:20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 2462:22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2443:21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2418:20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2399:11:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2376:10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2358:04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 2332:22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2325:16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2312:16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2267:14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2240:13:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2221:10:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2204:04:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2181:04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2155:03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2136:18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2113:03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2078:17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2061:01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1982:17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1945:16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1923:07:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1903:04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1883:11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1864:10:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1852:09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1835:23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1815:15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1805:15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1773:06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1757:15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1741:00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1719:21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1708:16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1696:15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1670:15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1649:09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1632:04:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1616:Weak Support / Moral Support 1611:04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1596:03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1579:03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1555:16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 1507:10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1476:20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1388:11:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1371:06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1295:04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1277:04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 1263:Derivative work#Vs._Fair_Use 1047:23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1015:22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 953:21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 790:05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 753:05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 642:08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 617:08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 576:07:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 107:03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 76:20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 4769: 3848:An accusation is not proof. 3661:current A&M related AfD 1108:'s edit summary usage with 419:05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 333:03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 307:03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 163:Questions for the candidate 4852: 3879:, I have been waiting for 2795:for which I am grateful. → 1456:a copyright does not apply 1443:verification information 2 1440:verification information 1 711:Answer incorporated above. 4164:going to file arbitration 3663:and the whole issue with 2966:start over and begin anew 1890:Thank you for helping at 1253:image, not that it was a 248:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band 215:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band 185:sections with a focus on 4813:Please do not modify it. 4435:Very, Very Strong oppose 3653:Texas A&M University 3412:a rule. It is someone's 2433:a reason for concern. -- 2128: 2105: 1436:copyright does not apply 223:Today's Featured Article 39:Please do not modify it. 4359:. An AWESOME? picture: 4166:to prove a point? Wow. 3514:reports along the way. 3046:Well, let's talk about 993:Optional Question from 961:Optional Question from 841:What tools do you use? 809:Optional Question from 592:Your last RFA was just 456:Optional Question from 427:Optional Question from 385:Optional Question from 315:Optional Question from 258:Optional Question from 62:Withdrawn by nominator. 4393:for more information. 2704:edits remain permanent 2068:- trustworthy editor. 1377:User:BQZip01/AggieTrip 873:one of the bureaucrats 626:canvassing allegations 3767:Knowledge (XXG):Logos 2964:? Or that no one can 594:this month, weeks ago 364:this was his response 31:request for adminship 4672:- To avoid pile on. 3943:don't get your way. 3877:Kyle Field talk page 3091:out of line there... 2675:The original caption 2211:per above concerns. 1398:sake of verification 560:cannot be duplicated 246:Yes, primarily with 3471:, but many editors 3461:being argumentative 2869:This is a user page 2728:, which he used to 2286:Image:MC-130W2.jpeg 1933:possible canvassing 1150:Links for BQZip01: 1120:RfAs for this user: 1032:subject's user page 483:(from previous RfA) 433:(from previous RfA) 391:(from previous RfA) 360:User:Arbiteroftruth 336:(from previous RfA) 264:(from previous RfA) 4773: 4729:to avoid pile-on. 4720: 3911:Waterboarding RFAR 2957:stated his support 2741:stated his support 2290:Image:MC-130W.jpeg 2277:Image:5lq2jj15.gif 2159:Also per B below. 1770: 1665:speak, my child... 1232:before commenting. 362:some feedback and 40: 4762: 4714: 4703: 4498:This was not it. 4347:A popular photo: 4246: 3315:non-controversial 3307:instruction creep 3097: 2177: 2151: 1782:wait three months 1768: 1668: 1647: 1384: 1291: 1259:original research 38: 4843: 4815: 4799: 4795: 4790: 4771: 4767: 4718: 4702: 4699: 4696: 4676: 4642: 4640: 4634: 4628: 4513: 4482: 4477: 4421: 4403: 4319: 4317: 4311: 4305: 4292: 4245: 4194: 4184:. Nothing more. 4153: 4102: 4090: 4088: 4082: 4076: 3933: 3931: 3925: 3919: 3893: 3815: 3757: 3713: 3634: 3632: 3626: 3620: 3607: 3556: 3554: 3548: 3542: 3489: 3447: 3429: 3377: 3342: 3283:ignore all rules 3225: 3177: 3152: 3107: 3094: 2985: 2837: 2832: 2578: 2572: 2526: 2509: 2503: 2415: 2410: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2264: 2257: 2238: 2233: 2178: 2175: 2152: 2149: 2134: 2133: 2131: 2127: 2125: 2111: 2110: 2108: 2104: 2102: 2056: 2047: 2038: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1802: 1796: 1754: 1749: 1738: 1733: 1693: 1688: 1687: 1681: 1662: 1660: 1643: 1571:Malleus Fatuorum 1473: 1448:Texas, Our Texas 1385: 1382: 1368: 1317:Knowledge (XXG) 1292: 1289: 1274: 1216: 1175: 1099:General comments 1044: 950: 830: 827: 824: 821: 818: 815: 782: 745: 722: 639: 615: 613: 607: 601: 573: 477: 474: 471: 468: 465: 462: 416: 329: 324: 319: 305: 303: 104: 73: 4851: 4850: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4818:this nomination 4811: 4805:Duplicate vote 4793: 4788: 4750:Canyouhearmenow 4716: 4700: 4692: 4674: 4638: 4632: 4626: 4624: 4591: 4511: 4478: 4473: 4413: 4395: 4315: 4309: 4303: 4301: 4290: 4186: 4145: 4100: 4086: 4080: 4074: 4072: 3929: 3923: 3917: 3915: 3885: 3883:for a reply... 3807: 3749: 3705: 3630: 3624: 3618: 3616: 3599: 3552: 3546: 3540: 3538: 3481: 3445: 3421: 3369: 3354:s right now as 3340: 3217: 3175: 3150: 3099: 3048:talk:Kyle Field 3039:disputing that. 2993:disputing that. 2977: 2835: 2830: 2518: 2516:Offense taken. 2413: 2408: 2390: 2385: 2353: 2348: 2343: 2231: 2229: 2120: 2097: 2086: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1875:MichaelQSchmidt 1842:as per Triona. 1752: 1747: 1736: 1731: 1691: 1685: 1679: 1658: 1563: 1465: 1360: 1266: 1239: 1168: 1151: 1147: 1145: 1101: 1085:which states: " 1036: 1012:Canyouhearmenow 995:Canyouhearmenow 942: 828: 825: 822: 819: 816: 813: 650:Questions from 631: 611: 605: 599: 597: 565: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 460: 408: 327: 322: 317: 293: 165: 96: 65: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4849: 4847: 4839: 4838: 4828: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4779: 4778: 4758:Strong Neutral 4755: 4742: 4724: 4708: 4681: 4667: 4657:LessHeard vanU 4648: 4647: 4590: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4546: 4545: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4408: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4251: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4168:Cumulus Clouds 4123:Cumulus Clouds 4094: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4002: 3992:Cumulus Clouds 3988: 3974:131.44.121.252 3945:Cumulus Clouds 3940:Forum shopping 3865: 3864: 3863: 3860: 3856: 3849: 3833:Cumulus Clouds 3798: 3792: 3789: 3726: 3701: 3700:condescending. 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3573: 3526: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3360: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3092: 3084: 3080: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3063: 3055: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3026:Cumulus Clouds 3021: 3010: 3000:Your edits to 2998: 2994: 2971:if and only if 2953: 2946: 2929: 2911: 2903: 2896: 2881: 2861: 2848:Cumulus Clouds 2825: 2824: 2823: 2813:Cumulus Clouds 2808: 2807: 2785: 2784: 2774:Cumulus Clouds 2745:Cumulus Clouds 2726:Image:TCEH.jpg 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2464: 2445: 2435:Stephan Schulz 2431:this statement 2420: 2401: 2378: 2360: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2269: 2242: 2223: 2206: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2085: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2063: 2027: 2026: 2025: 1984: 1954:idiosyncrasies 1947: 1925: 1905: 1885: 1870:Strong Support 1867: 1854: 1837: 1817: 1807: 1775: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1698: 1672: 1651: 1634: 1613: 1598: 1581: 1562: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1543: 1510: 1509: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1445: 1424:Aggie War Hymn 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1355: 1238: 1235: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1217: 1146: 1144: 1143: 1138: 1133: 1128: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1110:mathbot's tool 1100: 1097: 1095: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1055:Question from 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1028:its failed AfD 990: 989: 988: 987: 958: 957: 956: 955: 919: 918: 917: 916: 912: 911: 910: 904: 898: 885: 881: 855: 854: 853: 852: 806: 805: 804: 803: 772: 771: 770: 718:Question from 715: 714: 713: 712: 699: 698: 697: 696: 647: 646: 645: 644: 581: 580: 579: 578: 542: 541: 540: 539: 506: 505: 504: 503: 453: 452: 451: 450: 424: 423: 422: 421: 382: 381: 380: 379: 367: 323:"Tinkleheimer" 312: 311: 310: 309: 255: 254: 253: 252: 234: 233: 232: 231: 201: 200: 199: 198: 164: 161: 160: 159: 156: 152: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4848: 4837: 4834: 4833: 4831: 4821: 4819: 4814: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4804: 4803: 4800: 4796: 4791: 4785: 4777: 4774: 4772: 4766: 4759: 4756: 4754: 4751: 4746: 4743: 4741: 4738: 4737: 4734: 4733: 4728: 4725: 4723: 4719: 4712: 4709: 4707: 4704: 4697: 4695: 4689: 4685: 4682: 4680: 4677: 4671: 4668: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4653: 4650: 4649: 4646: 4645: 4641: 4635: 4629: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4597: 4593: 4592: 4588: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4553:: Par above. 4552: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4531: 4527: 4524: 4518: 4515: 4514: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4501: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4476: 4472: 4469: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4455: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4433: 4425: 4422: 4420: 4418: 4409: 4407: 4404: 4402: 4400: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4379: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4358: 4356: 4353: 4351: 4349: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4331: 4330:Strong oppose 4328: 4322: 4318: 4312: 4306: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4294: 4293: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4255: 4254:Strong oppose 4252: 4250: 4247: 4243: 4241: 4240:Ed Fitzgerald 4236: 4233: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4193: 4191: 4183: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4154: 4152: 4150: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4114: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4104: 4103: 4095: 4093: 4089: 4083: 4077: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4064: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4042: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4003: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3958: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3926: 3920: 3912: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3894: 3892: 3890: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3861: 3857: 3854: 3850: 3847: 3846: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3816: 3814: 3812: 3803: 3802:Aggie Bonfire 3799: 3796: 3793: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3768: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3754: 3746: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3727: 3724: 3723:Aggie Bonfire 3719: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3712: 3710: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3689: 3684: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3643: 3637: 3633: 3627: 3621: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3608: 3606: 3604: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3565: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3549: 3543: 3535: 3530: 3529:Strong Oppose 3527: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3512: 3509: 3493: 3490: 3488: 3486: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3449: 3448: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3428: 3426: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3388: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3374: 3366: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3344: 3343: 3335: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3325: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3288: 3284: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3245: 3240: 3237: 3229: 3226: 3224: 3222: 3213: 3209: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3179: 3178: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3163: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3154: 3153: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3135: 3127: 3124: 3119: 3111: 3108: 3106: 3104: 3093: 3090: 3085: 3081: 3078: 3073: 3070: 3067: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3022: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2986: 2984: 2982: 2973: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2947: 2944: 2943: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2897: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2838: 2833: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2718: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2694: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2582: 2579: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2553:VandleBlaster 2550: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2523: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2510: 2504: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2483:VandleBlaster 2479: 2477: 2473: 2472:VandleBlaster 2468: 2465: 2463: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2452:free web host 2449: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2405: 2402: 2400: 2397: 2393: 2388: 2382: 2379: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2359: 2356: 2351: 2346: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2278: 2273: 2270: 2268: 2265: 2263: 2258: 2256: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2237: 2234: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2171: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2132: 2126: 2117:<joke: --> 2116: 2115: 2114: 2109: 2103: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2032:Good user. - 2031: 2028: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1987:Encouragement 1985: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1904: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1888:Moral Support 1886: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1813: 1808: 1806: 1803: 1797: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1774: 1771: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1755: 1750: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1689: 1682: 1676: 1673: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1588:Ice Cold Beer 1585: 1582: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1514: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1491: 1477: 1474: 1472: 1470: 1462: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1365: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1321: 1320: 1314: 1310: 1309:legal opinion 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1273: 1271: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1241: 1240: 1236: 1234: 1233: 1231: 1227: 1218: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1148: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1134: 1132: 1129: 1127: 1124: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1096: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1075: 1072: 1071: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1048: 1045: 1043: 1041: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1008: 1003: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 985: 981: 980:at face value 977: 974: 973: 971: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 954: 951: 949: 947: 939: 935: 930: 927: 926: 924: 921: 920: 913: 908: 905: 902: 899: 896: 893: 892: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 863: 862: 860: 857: 856: 850: 846: 843: 842: 840: 837: 836: 835: 834: 832: 831: 810: 801: 796: 793: 792: 791: 788: 787: 784: 776: 773: 768: 763: 759: 756: 755: 754: 751: 750: 747: 739: 735: 731: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 710: 707: 706: 704: 701: 700: 695: 690: 686: 682: 677: 672: 667: 664: 663: 660: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 643: 640: 638: 636: 627: 623: 620: 619: 618: 614: 608: 602: 595: 591: 588: 587: 586: 585: 577: 574: 572: 570: 561: 557: 553: 550: 549: 547: 544: 543: 536: 532: 528: 527: 522: 519: 518: 516: 513: 512: 511: 510: 500: 496: 493: 492: 490: 487: 486: 485: 484: 481: 479: 478: 457: 447: 444: 443: 440: 437: 436: 435: 434: 431: 430: 420: 417: 415: 413: 404: 401: 400: 398: 395: 394: 393: 392: 389: 388: 377: 373: 368: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 346: 345: 343: 340: 339: 338: 337: 334: 331: 330: 325: 320: 308: 304: 302: 300: 291: 290: 288: 281: 277: 274: 273: 271: 268: 267: 266: 265: 262: 261: 249: 245: 242: 241: 239: 236: 235: 228: 224: 220: 219:Aggie Bonfire 216: 212: 209: 208: 206: 203: 202: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 177: 176: 174: 171: 170: 169: 162: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 140: 139: 136: 134: 130: 124: 122: 118: 114: 109: 108: 105: 103: 101: 94:) - self nom 93: 90: 87: 83: 79: 78: 77: 74: 72: 70: 61: 59: 56: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4812: 4809: 4783: 4781: 4780: 4768: 4764: 4757: 4744: 4736: 4731: 4726: 4710: 4693: 4687: 4683: 4669: 4651: 4617:this article 4609:This article 4595: 4594: 4555:88.108.21.12 4550: 4548: 4547: 4525: 4510: 4494: 4464: 4460: 4434: 4416: 4414: 4398: 4396: 4386: 4385:Actually it 4329: 4289: 4253: 4244: 4239: 4234: 4189: 4187: 4148: 4146: 4140: 4136: 4099: 4043: 3972:. (BQZip01) 3965: 3961: 3905: 3902:this section 3888: 3886: 3880: 3872: 3868: 3852: 3810: 3808: 3776:Collectonian 3770: 3752: 3750: 3731:Collectonian 3708: 3706: 3696: 3692: 3687: 3669:Collectonian 3644: 3602: 3600: 3594: 3590: 3576: 3568: 3563: 3533: 3528: 3510: 3484: 3482: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3444: 3424: 3422: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3386: 3372: 3370: 3355: 3351: 3339: 3333: 3318: 3314: 3286: 3277: 3248: 3243: 3238: 3220: 3218: 3202: 3198: 3174: 3168: 3161: 3149: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3102: 3100: 3088: 3051: 3013: 2980: 2978: 2970: 2969: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2922: 2906: 2888: 2877:User:Johntex 2872: 2864: 2827: 2695: 2654:illustrating 2653: 2649: 2521: 2519: 2469: 2466: 2447: 2422: 2403: 2380: 2338: 2317: 2316: 2271: 2261: 2254: 2248: 2244: 2225: 2208: 2187: 2168: 2164: 2142: 2089: 2065: 2053: 2052: 2044: 2043: 2035: 2034: 2029: 2004:And maybe a 1986: 1958: 1957: 1949: 1927: 1911: 1907: 1887: 1869: 1856: 1839: 1819: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1763: 1726: 1713: 1712: 1700: 1674: 1654:Weak support 1653: 1641:RyanGerbil10 1636: 1615: 1600: 1583: 1566: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1524: 1512: 1511: 1489: 1488: 1468: 1466: 1393: 1363: 1361: 1351: 1325: 1324: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1283: 1269: 1267: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1223: 1222: 1209: 1203: 1197: 1191: 1185: 1179: 1172: 1165: 1159: 1094: 1086: 1073: 1063: 1054: 1053: 1039: 1037: 1024:this article 1019: 1001: 992: 991: 975: 969: 960: 959: 945: 943: 928: 922: 906: 900: 894: 888: 876: 864: 858: 844: 838: 833: 811: 808: 807: 794: 778: 774: 757: 741: 729: 717: 716: 708: 702: 684: 670: 665: 658: 649: 648: 634: 632: 621: 589: 583: 582: 568: 566: 559: 555: 551: 545: 534: 524: 520: 514: 508: 507: 494: 488: 482: 480: 458: 455: 454: 445: 438: 432: 426: 425: 411: 409: 402: 396: 390: 384: 383: 351: 347: 341: 335: 314: 313: 298: 296: 286: 284: 279: 275: 269: 263: 257: 256: 243: 237: 210: 204: 178: 172: 166: 155:accordingly. 147: 137: 132: 125: 110: 99: 97: 88: 80: 68: 66: 63: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 4732:OhanaUnited 4573:74.133.9.95 4364:PrimeHunter 4354:. Another: 4137:never, EVER 3141:three weeks 2797:Wordbuilder 2427:ArbCom case 2362:Oppose per 2018:Dorftrottel 2010:pointed out 1995:Dorftrottel 1937:Wordbuilder 1790:RfA process 1645:(Говорить!) 1605:Warrior4321 1454:. As such, 1432:World War I 1428:Rhine River 1057:Wordbuilder 1010:decisions? 915:discounted. 4688:this month 4512:RGTraynor 4333:adminship. 4291:RGTraynor 4275:Hans Adler 4263:Hans Adler 4101:RGTraynor 3665:Kyle Field 3465:reasonable 3457:discussion 3446:RGTraynor 3341:RGTraynor 3176:RGTraynor 3151:RGTraynor 3083:offer! :-) 3018:apologized 3014:everything 3002:Kyle Field 2937:explicitly 2889:completely 2885:alma mater 2733:Texas Tech 2722:alma mater 2717:opposition 2700:Kyle Field 2627:This image 2161:Derivative 2022:January 30 1999:January 30 1659:миражinred 1547:Hans Adler 1452:Fort Worth 1332:Kyle Field 1237:Discussion 689:WP:CANVASS 499:WP:TWINKLE 144:canvassing 55:3 February 4694:faithless 4535:Kafka Liz 4530:ownership 3900:Based on 3881:two weeks 3693:can still 3649:ownership 3439:Straw-man 3169:judgment, 2893:this page 2865:integrity 2836:cierekim 2679:Dual Freq 2632:Dual Freq 2304:Dual Freq 2176:DarkFalls 2150:DarkFalls 1900:Jehochman 1861:Lankiveil 1753:cierekim 1737:cierekim 1624:TomStar81 1383:DarkFalls 1290:DarkFalls 1195:block log 1114:talk page 1007:wikipedia 849:WP:TINKLE 676:talk page 429:Trusilver 378:criteria. 280:technical 4830:Category 4675:Tiptoety 4627:Lawrence 4613:this one 4596:Neutral. 4451:WP:WIARM 4447:WP:WIARM 4304:Lawrence 4259:WP:WHEEL 4242:(unfutz) 4075:Lawrence 3918:Lawrence 3745:fair use 3619:Lawrence 3577:happened 3541:Lawrence 3534:happened 3516:Doczilla 3392:Franamax 3292:Franamax 3254:Franamax 3208:WP:CREEP 3009:article. 2658:JayHenry 2614:JayHenry 2046:Favorite 1912:Hook 'em 1686:Zahakiel 1637:Support. 1608:Contribs 1336:fair use 1251:fair use 1163:contribs 880:ignored. 877:everyone 600:Lawrence 387:Fnlayson 92:contribs 4784:Neutral 4745:Neutral 4727:Neutral 4717:Spencer 4711:Neutral 4684:Neutral 4670:Neutral 4652:Neutral 4589:Neutral 4480:Zenwhat 4417:BQZip01 4399:BQZip01 4391:talk:BQ 4335:TomPhan 4204:TomPhan 4190:BQZip01 4182:WP:USER 4149:BQZip01 4135:I have 4048:Bearian 4007:TomPhan 3889:BQZip01 3873:exactly 3859:IMNSHO. 3851:I have 3811:BQZip01 3753:BQZip01 3709:BQZip01 3645:Opppose 3603:BQZip01 3485:BQZip01 3425:BQZip01 3414:opinion 3373:BQZip01 3356:support 3221:BQZip01 3195:general 3137:Oppose: 3103:BQZip01 2981:BQZip01 2919:WP:BITE 2708:several 2522:BQZip01 2409:Beloved 2329:Spartaz 2323:Spartaz 2272:Oppose. 2236:iva1979 2213:Epbr123 2170:image). 2167:free. " 2066:Support 2030:Support 2020:19:51, 2001:, 2008 1997:19:41, 1950:Support 1928:Support 1908:Support 1896:WP:COIN 1857:Support 1840:Support 1820:Support 1786:written 1780:. The 1778:Support 1764:Support 1727:Support 1714:Support 1701:Support 1675:Support 1601:Support 1584:Support 1567:Support 1561:Support 1499:TomPhan 1469:BQZip01 1430:during 1364:BQZip01 1270:BQZip01 1243:Comment 1170:deleted 1153:BQZip01 1106:BQZip01 1083:WP:USER 1040:BQZip01 984:WP:USER 963:TomPhan 946:BQZip01 907:Support 783:dam1213 746:dam1213 723:dam1213 635:BQZip01 569:BQZip01 535:article 412:BQZip01 328:Haworth 299:BQZip01 133:general 100:BQZip01 82:BQZip01 69:BQZip01 60:(UTC). 47:BQZip01 4615:, and 4551:Oppose 4526:Oppose 4500:Walton 4439:WP:IAR 4378:Walton 4235:Oppose 4113:Walton 4063:Walton 4044:Oppose 4005:point. 3906:losing 3828:WP:OWN 3772:owner. 3683:WP:OWN 3582:WP:BLP 3511:Oppose 3473:prefer 3352:oppose 3334:should 3324:Walton 3311:WP:IAR 3278:should 3269:Walton 3239:Oppose 3212:WP:IAR 3191:WP:SSP 3187:WP:3RR 3145:months 3123:Walton 3077:WP:BRD 3059:WP:BRD 3006:WP:BRD 2950:WP:AGF 2923:should 2915:WP:BRD 2907:anyone 2900:WP:BRD 2763:Walton 2761:? :-) 2737:WP:AGF 2730:demean 2696:Oppose 2595:Ral315 2571:Keeper 2539:Stifle 2502:Keeper 2467:Oppose 2448:Oppose 2423:Oppose 2404:Oppose 2381:Oppose 2368:Daniel 2339:Oppose 2318:Oppose 2262:stable 2245:Oppose 2226:Oppose 2209:Oppose 2188:Oppose 2143:Oppose 2124:Dreamy 2101:Dreamy 2090:Oppose 2084:Oppose 2070:Addhoc 2055:Cookie 2037:Milk's 2024:, 2008 1892:WP:SSP 1844:Stifle 1827:Triona 1824:WP:AGF 1795:Keeper 1705:Walton 1341:WP:NOR 1319:policy 1030:, the 938:WP:3RR 934:WP:SSP 901:Oppose 895:Oppose 889:levels 847:I use 767:WP:3RR 738:WP:3RR 734:WP:3RR 652:Avruch 556:cannot 533:, one- 497:I use 376:WP:MOS 356:WP:SSP 318:Trevor 287:formal 191:WP:SSP 187:WP:3RR 129:WP:3RR 121:WP:SSP 117:WP:3RR 4789:NHRHS 4605:WP:OR 4461:shred 4387:still 3853:NEVER 3319:never 3199:would 2927:WP:AN 2711:edits 2481:page. 2414:Freak 2386:NHRHS 2165:never 1915:Corpx 1540:every 1328:WP:OR 1305:could 1301:legal 1249:as a 1226:civil 1177:count 1079:WP:AN 884:page. 869:WP:FA 762:WP:AN 285:is a 260:jj137 197:page. 195:WP:AN 183:WP:AN 113:WP:AN 33:that 16:< 4794:2010 4661:talk 4603:and 4601:WP:V 4577:talk 4559:talk 4539:talk 4485:talk 4465:ever 4368:talk 4339:talk 4279:talk 4273:. -- 4271:here 4267:talk 4208:talk 4172:talk 4127:talk 4052:talk 4011:talk 3996:talk 3978:talk 3949:talk 3837:talk 3780:talk 3735:talk 3688:many 3673:talk 3586:WP:V 3584:and 3564:some 3520:talk 3477:will 3459:and 3396:talk 3296:talk 3258:talk 3203:must 3189:and 3030:talk 2933:have 2917:and 2880:it). 2852:talk 2831:Dloh 2817:talk 2801:talk 2778:talk 2759:Tabs 2749:talk 2683:talk 2662:talk 2636:talk 2618:talk 2599:talk 2567:here 2557:talk 2543:talk 2487:talk 2476:talk 2456:Step 2439:talk 2391:2010 2372:talk 2344:Jmlk 2308:talk 2288:and 2281:this 2255:Whit 2217:talk 2200:talk 2194:. -- 2172:" — 2074:talk 2014:User 1991:User 1964:e Tr 1941:talk 1919:talk 1879:talk 1848:talk 1831:talk 1822:per 1748:Dloh 1732:Dloh 1628:Talk 1592:talk 1575:talk 1551:talk 1503:talk 1379:? — 1255:free 1247:used 1207:rfar 1189:logs 1157:talk 1104:See 1068:this 982:per 936:and 817:e Tr 786:Talk 775:14b. 749:Talk 685:good 554:You 464:e Tr 217:and 189:and 119:and 86:talk 58:2008 4765:Ter 4549:#. 4141:any 3697:not 3595:but 3591:are 3569:but 3410:not 3406:not 3387:all 3287:and 3249:lay 3244:all 3162:far 3089:way 3052:not 2873:own 2650:not 2574:| 2505:| 2459:hen 2094:FAC 2006:map 1976:ist 1973:man 1967:ans 1812:Doc 1798:| 1536:not 1394:BUT 1313:not 1213:spi 1183:AfD 1064:20. 1002:19. 970:18. 923:17. 859:16. 839:15. 829:ist 826:man 820:ans 730:14. 703:13. 671:not 659:12. 590:11. 546:10. 476:ist 473:man 467:ans 352:how 297:— 4832:: 4770:ra 4701:() 4663:) 4630:§ 4623:. 4611:, 4579:) 4561:) 4541:) 4487:) 4453:. 4415:— 4397:— 4370:) 4362:. 4341:) 4307:§ 4281:) 4210:) 4188:— 4174:) 4147:— 4129:) 4078:§ 4054:) 4013:) 3998:) 3980:) 3966:my 3951:) 3921:§ 3887:— 3869:no 3839:) 3809:— 3782:) 3751:— 3747:. 3737:) 3707:— 3675:) 3622:§ 3601:— 3544:§ 3522:) 3483:— 3423:— 3398:) 3371:— 3298:) 3260:) 3219:— 3101:— 3032:) 2979:— 2931:I 2867:? 2854:) 2819:) 2803:) 2780:) 2751:) 2714:in 2685:) 2664:) 2638:) 2630:-- 2620:) 2601:) 2577:76 2559:) 2545:) 2520:— 2508:76 2489:) 2441:) 2374:) 2366:. 2310:) 2302:-- 2219:) 2202:) 2119:. 2076:) 2012:. 1970:hu 1961:Th 1943:) 1921:) 1881:) 1850:) 1833:) 1801:76 1769:VS 1630:) 1618:— 1594:) 1577:) 1553:) 1515:: 1505:) 1492:: 1467:— 1438:. 1362:— 1311:, 1268:— 1201:lu 1074:A: 1038:— 1026:, 1020:A: 976:A: 944:— 929:A: 865:A: 845:A: 823:hu 814:Th 795:A: 769:). 758:A: 740:-- 709:A: 666:A: 633:— 622:A: 603:§ 567:— 552:A: 521:A: 515:9. 495:A: 489:8. 470:hu 461:Th 446:A: 439:7. 410:— 403:A: 397:6. 348:A: 342:5. 276:A. 270:4. 244:A: 238:3. 211:A: 205:2. 179:A: 173:1. 148:no 98:— 67:— 37:. 4782:# 4659:( 4639:e 4636:/ 4633:t 4575:( 4557:( 4537:( 4483:( 4475:☯ 4419:— 4401:— 4366:( 4337:( 4316:e 4313:/ 4310:t 4277:( 4265:( 4206:( 4192:— 4170:( 4151:— 4125:( 4087:e 4084:/ 4081:t 4050:( 4009:( 3994:( 3976:( 3960:" 3947:( 3930:e 3927:/ 3924:t 3891:— 3835:( 3813:— 3778:( 3755:— 3733:( 3711:— 3671:( 3631:e 3628:/ 3625:t 3605:— 3553:e 3550:/ 3547:t 3518:( 3487:— 3427:— 3394:( 3375:— 3294:( 3256:( 3223:— 3105:— 3028:( 2983:— 2850:( 2815:( 2799:( 2776:( 2747:( 2681:( 2660:( 2634:( 2616:( 2597:( 2555:( 2541:( 2524:— 2485:( 2474:( 2437:( 2370:( 2354:7 2349:1 2306:( 2232:S 2215:( 2198:( 2196:B 2072:( 2016:: 1993:: 1939:( 1917:( 1877:( 1866:. 1846:( 1829:( 1692:► 1680:◄ 1667:) 1663:( 1626:( 1590:( 1573:( 1549:( 1501:( 1471:— 1458:. 1400:: 1366:— 1354:. 1343:. 1282:" 1272:— 1215:) 1210:· 1204:· 1198:· 1192:· 1186:· 1180:· 1173:· 1166:· 1160:· 1155:( 1116:. 1042:— 948:— 781:A 744:A 721:A 637:— 612:e 609:/ 606:t 571:— 414:— 301:— 102:— 89:· 84:( 71:—

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index