1545:. I think many of your ideas and approaches to consensus are quite correct, but for a person who spends a lot of time tagging articles and evaluating them, I think some experience in actually writing some encyclopedic content is important for perspective. This perspective is important when it comes to evaluating whether to send something to AFD or PROD, or whether to speedy delete something. It is important when giving advice to newcomers, who ask you why you deleted something they created. There are cases of good admins who have a fairly limited amount of experience in article writing, BigDT comes to mind, but those cases are exceptional. I don't think that being a prolific contributor who makes featured articles is necessary, but some experience in learning how to source things, look for sources, evaluate the material, and write something comprehensible will be useful to you, as well as being fun and educational. With all that said, I think your heart is in the right place, you have a good attitude, and I think you have done some good stuff. Good luck for the future.
157:. Since I have tagged a good deal of articles for speedy deletion, I believe that I could help in deleting the correctly tagged articles myself. I also wish to be able to block users who create nonsense or vandalism articles when I see that their only contributions have been the nonsense and vandalism articles. I also may block persistent vandals or protect pages from time to time.
1254:. I don't think that Captain panda has good enough judgement to be an admin. One particular case that comes to mind comes from this very talk page: I satirized project-space edit counting by describing an obviously bad system of "points", where you get points for voting and general meta-wankery, and you get no points for contributing to the encyclopedia.
1137:
focus primarily on these things are not what I am looking for in a potential administrator. In addition, while this fellow appears to be a dedicated volunteer (and apologies if it seems as if I'm shortchanging his contributions, which is not my aim at all) I would like to see some actual encyclopedic contributions
90:, helping to combat the backlog of biography articles that needs assessments. He is an active community member and has participated in a wide range of articles. The thing that I admire is that he is active participating in RfA discussions. I think he will be an asset to the community when he becomes an admin.
1514:. 90% of CP's edits seem to be voting in RfAs (almost always supporting), or tagging talkpages/stubs using AWB, neither of which give any basis for judging CP's competence. I'm frankly dismayed by how many "support"s have been given above; it's about the strongest evidence I've seen for RfA reform. This is
1136:
This user does not seem to fully realise our goals, which is to build an encyclopedia. When someone's proudest contributions are "voting" in RfA's and discussing RfA, there is a problem. Not that these aren't worthy ventures (this sort of request is not a vote, by the way, but a discussion), but to
1502:. I would like to see more edits that demonstrate a clear understanding of policy, as opposed to tagging the talk pages of biography articles (which seems to be the bulk of your recent edits). Not to say that you haven't done good work, it's just not a good indicator of how you'd be as an admin. --
1420:
I am concerned that the applicant does not have a lot of experience in editing articles. From that editing experience, one gets to a better grasp on the needs and challenges of the administrator. So I get the feeling that the applicant really wants to be a "police officer" rather than a community
1559:
I think that in order to pass an RfA, you need to do more than comment on other people's RfAs, tag a few articles, and whack a few vandal contributions... there needs to be some indication that you've thought about what being an admin means and that you are in tune with the goals of the project. I
1350:
We are building an encyclopedia; while I fully accept that keeping it vandal-free is of prime importance, I also feel that admins should be able to make sensible mainpage contributions which they can be proud of. To feel, as this user does, that the edits they are most proud of are tagging and RfA
1034:
And his point is? I'm gonna act naive and pretend I don't know that some people confuse article writing with administrator capability. Wake up and smell the roses people, not one admin tool enhances your article ability. In fact, being an admin would give you less time in that area. Why do you
1263:
In regards to questions: I appreciate that he answered Q4 honestly, and didn't resort to the popular doublespeak of "we're not voting, we're voting with an exclamation point in front of it"; but I find his answer to Q2 terrible. He considers his best contributions to include the votes he casts on
603:
opposes when when its justified rather than just being a nice guy which is what you seem to be implying? I'm all for niceness BTW and I'm not picking on you personally AD but I just cannot understand the level of support on this page given that the nominee has made hardly any contributions to the
1640:
Good user, should be able to attain a successful RfA in the near future, as the main concerns raised by opposers are crucial but easy to be overcome. Just get more involved in the encyclopedia build-up and admin-oriented tasks such as vandalfight, and you'll be ready for the mop in a couple of
1421:
member. Also, the answers to the questions don't indicate a lot of interest (maybe enthusiasm?) and didn't indicate that they knew what to do with the job. I think there are enough admins who police the project. Personally, I want to see more admins who help build the project.
446:- I have seen you around Knowledge a few times, especially in RFA, and I am convinced you would make a good admin. You have done a good job with WikiProject Biography work and dealing with inappropriate pages. I also think your comments are always constructive and polite.
1389:
Per answers to questions. I am not convinced that
Captain panda is ready to back up his use of the admin tools with written clarification in those circumstances where such clarification is needed. He is a good editor and certainly should return in three months to RfA. --
1235:, but I still think you should be more careful and not so hasty in tagging. Also, I think you shouldn't spend so much time in RfAs. That time can easily be managed into article work. By the way, keep up the good work with the assessment drive.
1564:
is inevitable, but it's a bit off to start where many people end up shifting TO. Spend some time doing the things folks are urging you to do, hang out at RfA a bit less, and try again when you've experienced more that the wiki has to offer.
173:
I feel that my best contributions are my tagging of articles that have no place on
Knowledge to be deleted as I mentioned before. I also feel that another good contribution that I have made are my assessment of biography articles for
702:- excellent editor. As I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with promoting users who are primarily focused on maintenance work; maintenance is at least as important as writing new articles, and without it Knowledge would fall apart.
238:
I consider RfA to be voting because it is. I am not saying that this is good, but with its current format, RfA is simply a vote without a definite cutoff number. It supposedly is a discussion, but my experience has shown me
584:- Captain Panda is friendly, supportive in RFAs, shows civility, and exhibits a fair range of contributions (that, yes, might be good for some expansion into some spaces you havent really got your hands into). I support.
1073:
Very nice guy, but I don't think his range of experience extends far enough outside of
Wikispace (a relative rarity for me.) Hard-working wiki-gnome -- just needs to expand his work to something more content-intensive.
1213:, Captain panda tags an article for CSD A7 when an assertion of notability has been made. That article can be deleted later by PROD or AfD, but not by speedy deletion since it doesn't qualify. I see the same issue
210:. I mistakenly thought that he was a sockpuppet and got into a dispute about this. After I was proven wrong, I apologized for my mistake. I do not think that I have since made such a great mistake in voting in
1217:. An assertion of notability has been made in the article. Also, the two previous diffs show that user is a bit too "trigger-happy" since he tags articles within 1-2 minutes of creation (some more can be seen
931:- I've seen Captain panda around, and the answers to the questions and a generalized review of his contributions seem to confirm the idea that he would make a good admin. Here's my push for your mop. :)
259:
I think banning is somewhat unnecessary when a user can simply be indefinitely blocked instead of a ban. If banning is to be used, it should be used only when an indefinite block is not extreme enough.
1096:
I received the army from its creator when he decided to leave
Knowledge. I figured that it would be rude to get rid of it. If the community would like me to have it deleted, I will gladly do so.
678:
work, but nothing in oppose indicates a reason not to trust this user with the tools, and previous personal interaction has been civil and friendly with a commitment to helping out this work.
175:
87:
1674:
316:
295:
saying that the article cannot be written without an opinion on the topic. There is no need for it to be thrown away, but it should be changed so that it is harder to abuse.
140:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1018:(edit conflict) That was Matthew's intention. He was trying to show that the user does stub-sorting, speedy tagging, and tag adding — all of which are AWB-style bot edits.
207:
196:
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?
1006:
Matthew's point was that nearly all of
Captain panda's recent mainspace edits are tagging or AWB edits (although I don't personally have an opinion on this point).
919:. There is the Knowledge we would want and the Knowledge we have. This isn't a value judgment, though, it is a challenge to improvement. I think this one gets it. --
548:- I have seen the user on RfA's and has been a wikipedian for a long time and I believe its about time he got the tools and I trust the user will use it wisely..--
458:. I've seen you voting prolifically in RFA, and I like your criteria. I'm sort of concerned, however, that pretty much all your mainspace edits deal with tagging.
674:
Reply to my optional question goes against the spirit of RFA, but was refreshingly honest. I still have concerns that you view your contributions at RFA as your
1261:. So either he was making a knee-jerk response without reading, or he actually thinks that Knowledge should be easily gamed, both of which show poor judgement.
1223:). People frequently create a rough outline of an article, and continue to work on it while it is in the mainspace. It's good that you re-checked your tagging
356:
1692:
1408:. I don't feel that the editor has enough experience in encyclopedia building and dealing with editorial conflicts to make a good admin at the present time.
343:
1560:
have to agree with other opposes that it would do you some good to try your hand at some serious article writing or editing or cleanup or something.
1087:. Vandal-fighting is great, but para-military lingo associated therewith often indicates a user is unfamiliar with the full goals of the project.
1377:, not a content editor. I'll give you a point for the answer to question four, but you need to do article work. That's what this is all about.
350:
1469:
I'm not convinced by this candidacy - communication skills seem to be lacking, and the users contributions are not particularly compelling.
287:
needs to be changed. It is a good policy in theory, but it has quite a large potential to be abused. Some examples are an editor ignoring
399:
336:
83:
386:
906:
380:
1361:
tagging, as highlighted above by several editors, gives an impression that you may be trigger-happy, which is not good in an admin.--
312:
604:
encyclopaedia. It really bothers me that there seems to be undue weight given in many RfA's based solely on participation here. —
30:
17:
774:
A good editor; doesn't seem to be any reason to expect that this user will abuse, misuse or lack understanding of the tools.
499:
1084:
592:
720:
273:
What policy or rule do you think
Knowledge should modify to provide a better editing environment? (This question is
1367:
526:
284:
1574:
398:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
1209:
when assertions of notability have been made. The user also is a bit hasty on his speedy tagging. For example,
586:
466:
1113:
703:
1102:
599:"supportive in RFAs" - that's a strange reason to support him/her. Shouldn't CP be honest and give support
330:
122:
77:
1659:
1632:
1611:
1577:
1554:
1536:
1522:
1506:
1493:
1473:
1461:
1444:
1425:
1412:
1400:
1381:
1369:
1342:
1327:
1312:
1300:
1284:
1246:
1193:
1163:
1149:
1125:
1116:
1107:
1091:
1078:
1057:
1029:
1013:
1001:
974:
953:
937:
923:
911:
887:
873:
846:
834:
822:
807:
785:
766:
754:
742:
730:
706:
694:
666:
647:
633:
610:
594:
576:
557:
540:
513:
476:
450:
438:
127:
104:
59:
1177:
985:
902:
1053:
869:
86:) - It is my pleasure to nominate Captain panda as an administrator candidate. He is an active member of
1648:
1530:. Best work is tagging biographical articles and contributions to RfA's? Sorry but it's a no for me. —
1362:
553:
432:
98:
1673:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
533:
1264:
RfA? That's... quite self-centered. The Q5 answer is naive -- banning is not just an "extreme block".
805:
1409:
949:
487:
920:
1549:
1481:. Well-meaning, energetic editor, but questionable reading comprehension and communication skills.
1241:
1024:
522:
461:
1158:
843:
1531:
1440:
1147:
1138:
1097:
819:
739:
605:
510:
495:
326:
308:
183:
117:
73:
1422:
1161:
898:
780:
565:
Why not? The tools would make his usual tasks, tagging bad articles, easier and faster to do.
1351:
voting does not inspire me. I am also concerned that the timing between article creation and
1653:
1276:
1010:
725:
627:
550:
425:
277:
intended for a long analysis. Just say which policy and the reason why it needs to change.)
270:
91:
1604:
1503:
1355:
1293:
945:
831:
687:
1561:
1628:
1623:
1546:
1378:
1237:
1041:
1020:
932:
857:
751:
292:
1112:
What's un-Wikipedian about "para-military lingo"? The
Knowledge Army is a great idea.
1083:
Also, it is a definite negative, in my view, that the user maintains something called
830:, candidate is showing a healthy skepticism and lack of idealism about the project. --
1686:
1570:
1519:
1436:
1393:
1206:
882:
816:
662:
569:
491:
447:
288:
211:
203:
179:
56:
1482:
1322:
1309:
971:
775:
763:
657:
642:
1205:. Judging from this user's contributions, I see that this user tags articles for
1643:
1455:
1339:
1265:
1007:
794:
715:
622:
793:, contribs seem to express a sufficient familiarity with policy and procedure.
1598:
1470:
1122:
1088:
1075:
1046:
1036:
862:
852:
681:
291:
saying that his or her opinion about the disputed edit is correct or ignoring
225:
1667:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1157:
sorry, lack of article writing, and per gaillimh, poor answer for question 2
1308:
Sorry, but I don't think this user concentrates enough on content building.
1566:
895:
Seems good; love the 'telling it like it is' response to question 4 :).
1202:
154:
63:
1433:
not enough substantiev encyclopedia building, too many bot/awb edits.
1677:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
232:
at RFA. Do you therefore consider RFA to be a straight forward vote?
1171:
I haven't seen any reasons to trust this user with the admin tools.
116:
I accept the nomination and I thank OhanaUnited for nominating me.
1621:
I'm not much of a opposing guy, but your best edit is the Rfa...?
979:
Matthew, all of the contributes you showed were to the mainspace.
228:
You mention twice in your questions about your participation in
66:
1449:
I am concerned about this users' experience in relation to the
1518:
a popularity contest, nor a 'reward' for simple gnome-work. --
186:
voting on potential administrators for the
English Knowledge.
111:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
815:, I've seen you around and I'd be happy to Support. Cheers,
1257:
Captain panda then took my satire as a serious proposal:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
167:
What are your best contributions to
Knowledge, and why?
1259:"Actually, I wouldn't mind using rspeer's point system"
1258:
1255:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
969:
534:
374:
368:
362:
714:
All my interactions have been good, and I trust them.
527:
968:— You don't seem to contribute to the encyclopaedia.
620:
No reason to oppose. He's great for his time here.
1201:According to Q1, Captain panda wishes to help with
1098:
118:
1453:, and also the candidates' communication skills.
208:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Trebor Rowntree
176:WikiProject Biography's summer assessment drive
147:What admin work do you intend to take part in?
1292:per gaillimh, Nishkid64 & others, sorry --
484:. Great editor, have had positive experiences.
88:WikiProject Biography summer assessment drive
8:
1622:
1035:need to work in it to show admin abilities?
178:. Also, I have spent a good deal of time in
842:, No reason not to support; a good editor.
1103:
851:Been waiting for this one. Great editor.
570:
123:
1338:per answer to Q2 and comments by Rspeer.
153:I plan to do much of my work on clearing
1121:Answered Walton's question at his talk.
62:at (29/24/2); Scheduled end time 14:44,
762:. Very good editor and looks honest. --
1627:
214:and I hope that I do not make another.
7:
1693:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
1593:Pending a response to optional Q4.
750:I have no problems with this user.
400:Special:Contributions/Captain panda
1391:
24:
655:Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --
249:When whould do you consider user
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1188:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1173:
1139:
996:
993:
989:
986:
981:
933:
799:
796:
427:
93:
566:
315:. For the edit count, see the
202:Early in my time of voting in
1:
1047:
1042:
1037:
863:
858:
853:
628:
571:
434:
100:
1394:
623:
509:He's been here long enough.
55:Closed without consensus by
311:'s edit summary usage with
136:Questions for the candidate
1709:
285:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
1578:23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1555:07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
954:19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
611:01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
324:Links for Captain panda:
60:16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1670:Please do not modify it.
1660:02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1633:02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1612:19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1537:16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1523:18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1507:18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1494:05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1474:20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1462:08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1445:21:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1426:21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1413:06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1401:06:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1382:05:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1370:22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1343:17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1328:00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1313:14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1301:11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1285:22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1247:20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1194:19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1164:19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1150:18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1126:14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1117:09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1108:22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1092:22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1079:16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1058:05:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1030:20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1014:20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1002:19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
975:16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
938:23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
924:21:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
912:19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
888:18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
874:05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
847:16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
835:11:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
823:06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
808:21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
786:21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
767:19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
755:17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
743:17:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
731:09:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
707:09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
695:07:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
667:04:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
648:02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
634:23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
595:23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
577:23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
558:19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
541:16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
514:16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
477:16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
451:15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
439:05:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
206:I made a great error in
128:14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
105:05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
40:Please do not modify it.
881:You are a great editor
490:comment was added by
31:request for adminship
1085:"The Knowledge Army"
267:Optional Question 6.
247:Optional Question 5.
222:Optional Question 4.
588:Anonymous Dissident
1658:
1595:Moved to Support.
591:
402:before commenting.
1642:
1610:
1552:
952:
910:
738:I trust him too!
693:
585:
503:
1700:
1672:
1656:
1651:
1646:
1631:
1626:
1609:
1607:
1596:
1550:
1490:
1486:
1458:
1443:
1399:
1396:
1364:Anthony.bradbury
1360:
1354:
1325:
1296:
1282:
1279:
1272:
1269:
1245:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1180:
1175:
1145:
1144:
1105:
1100:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1028:
1000:
998:
995:
991:
988:
983:
948:
935:
909:
896:
885:
865:
860:
855:
801:
798:
728:
723:
718:
692:
690:
679:
665:
660:
645:
630:
625:
589:
574:
573:
568:
556:
538:
531:
485:
472:
469:
464:
448:Camaron1 | Chris
436:
435:
430:
429:
390:
349:
302:General comments
271:User:OhanaUnited
253:is appropriate.
125:
120:
102:
101:
96:
95:
42:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1675:this nomination
1668:
1654:
1649:
1644:
1605:
1597:
1562:Namespace shift
1488:
1484:
1456:
1434:
1410:Espresso Addict
1375:Strongly oppose
1358:
1352:
1323:
1294:
1280:
1277:
1270:
1267:
1236:
1172:
1140:
1056:
1019:
980:
897:
883:
872:
726:
721:
716:
688:
680:
658:
656:
643:
587:
549:
521:- I agree with
486:—The preceding
470:
467:
462:
433:
426:
409:
342:
325:
304:
138:
99:
92:
52:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1706:
1704:
1696:
1695:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1663:
1662:
1635:
1615:
1614:
1581:
1580:
1557:
1539:
1525:
1509:
1497:
1476:
1464:
1447:
1428:
1415:
1403:
1384:
1372:
1345:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1303:
1287:
1262:
1249:
1196:
1166:
1152:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1110:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1052:
957:
956:
940:
926:
914:
890:
876:
868:
849:
837:
825:
810:
788:
769:
757:
745:
733:
709:
700:Strong Support
697:
669:
650:
636:
615:
614:
613:
579:
560:
543:
516:
504:
479:
453:
441:
413:
412:
408:
405:
395:
394:
393:
391:
321:
320:
313:mathbot's tool
303:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
263:
262:
261:
260:
243:
242:
241:
240:
218:
217:
216:
215:
190:
189:
188:
187:
161:
160:
159:
158:
137:
134:
132:
114:
113:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1705:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1678:
1676:
1671:
1665:
1664:
1661:
1657:
1652:
1647:
1639:
1636:
1634:
1630:
1625:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1608:
1602:
1601:
1594:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1563:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1452:
1448:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1437:User:Argyriou
1432:
1429:
1427:
1424:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1388:
1385:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1365:
1357:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1326:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1274:
1273:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1184:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1135:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1101:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1072:
1069:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
992:
978:
977:
976:
973:
970:
967:
964:
963:
962:
961:
955:
951:
947:
944:
941:
939:
936:
930:
927:
925:
922:
918:
915:
913:
908:
904:
900:
894:
891:
889:
886:
880:
877:
875:
871:
866:
861:
856:
850:
848:
845:
841:
838:
836:
833:
829:
826:
824:
821:
818:
814:
811:
809:
806:
803:
802:
792:
789:
787:
783:
782:
777:
773:
770:
768:
765:
761:
758:
756:
753:
749:
746:
744:
741:
740:Politics rule
737:
734:
732:
729:
724:
719:
713:
710:
708:
705:
701:
698:
696:
691:
685:
684:
677:
673:
670:
668:
664:
661:
654:
651:
649:
646:
640:
637:
635:
632:
631:
626:
619:
616:
612:
609:
608:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
583:
580:
578:
575:
564:
561:
559:
555:
552:
547:
544:
542:
539:
537:
532:
530:
525:. Good luck!
524:
520:
517:
515:
512:
508:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
483:
480:
478:
475:
474:
473:
465:
457:
454:
452:
449:
445:
442:
440:
437:
431:
423:
420:
419:
418:
417:
411:
410:
406:
404:
403:
401:
392:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
348:
345:
341:
338:
335:
332:
328:
327:Captain panda
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:Captain panda
306:
305:
301:
294:
290:
286:
283:I think that
282:
279:
278:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
258:
255:
254:
252:
248:
245:
244:
237:
234:
233:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
197:
195:
192:
191:
185:
181:
177:
172:
169:
168:
166:
163:
162:
156:
152:
149:
148:
146:
143:
142:
141:
135:
133:
130:
129:
126:
121:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
97:
89:
85:
82:
79:
75:
74:Captain panda
71:
70:
68:
65:
61:
58:
50:
49:Captain panda
47:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1669:
1666:
1637:
1618:
1599:
1590:
1589:
1583:
1582:
1542:
1532:
1527:
1515:
1511:
1499:
1492:
1483:
1478:
1466:
1454:
1451:encyclopedia
1450:
1435:
1430:
1423:Orangemarlin
1417:
1405:
1392:
1386:
1374:
1363:
1347:
1335:
1321:per Rspeer -
1318:
1317:
1305:
1298:
1289:
1266:
1251:
1198:
1176:
1168:
1154:
1141:
1070:
984:
965:
959:
958:
942:
928:
921:Fire Star 火星
916:
899:ck lostsword
892:
878:
839:
827:
812:
795:
790:
779:
771:
759:
747:
735:
711:
699:
682:
675:
671:
652:
638:
621:
617:
606:
600:
581:
562:
545:
535:
528:
523:Bibliomaniac
518:
506:
481:
463:bibliomaniac
460:
459:
455:
443:
421:
415:
414:
397:
396:
383:
377:
371:
365:
359:
353:
346:
339:
333:
280:
274:
266:
256:
250:
246:
235:
229:
221:
199:
193:
170:
164:
150:
144:
139:
131:
115:
110:
80:
72:
54:
53:
48:
39:
34:
28:
804:•
428:OhanaUnited
94:OhanaUnited
1504:MisterHand
946:Ben MacDui
832:Agamemnon2
407:Discussion
239:otherwise.
226:User:Pedro
1641:months.--
1547:Sjakkalle
1379:Everyking
1238:Nishkid64
1021:Nishkid64
934:Nihiltres
752:Acalamari
369:block log
317:talk page
1687:Category
1629:irohisat
1551:(Check!)
1533:Moondyne
1520:Quiddity
1395:Jreferee
1142:gaillimh
1054:Contribs
884:Davis160
870:Contribs
641:Per Q5 -
607:Moondyne
572:TomasBat
500:contribs
492:SFGiants
488:unsigned
424:as nom.
337:contribs
84:contribs
57:Cecropia
1638:Neutral
1619:Neutral
1591:Neutral
1584:Neutral
1324:Flubeca
1310:Socom49
1203:CAT:CSD
1159:Jaranda
1099:Captain
972:Matthew
943:Support
929:Support
917:Support
893:Support
879:Support
844:Bart133
840:Support
828:Support
813:Support
791:Support
776:GDonato
772:Support
764:Carioca
760:Support
748:Support
736:Support
712:Support
672:Support
663:iva1979
653:Support
644:Flubeca
639:Support
618:Support
582:Support
563:Support
546:Support
519:Support
507:Support
482:Support
456:Support
444:Support
422:Support
416:Support
344:deleted
293:WP:NPOV
251:banning
155:CAT:CSD
119:Captain
64:11 July
1543:oppose
1528:Oppose
1512:Oppose
1500:Oppose
1479:Oppose
1467:Oppose
1457:Daniel
1441:(talk)
1431:oppose
1418:Oppose
1406:Oppose
1387:Oppose
1356:speedy
1348:Oppose
1340:Addhoc
1336:Oppose
1319:Oppose
1306:Oppose
1290:Oppose
1252:Oppose
1207:CSD A7
1199:Oppose
1169:Oppose
1155:Oppose
1114:Walton
1071:Oppose
1008:Ral315
966:Oppose
960:Oppose
950:(Talk)
704:Walton
554:styles
511:Shalom
289:WP:3RR
230:voting
184:WT:RFA
180:WP:RFA
1606:Chat
1600:Pedro
1489:Train
1471:Carom
1295:Herby
1278:ɹəəds
1271:speer
1123:Xoloz
1104:panda
1089:Xoloz
1076:Xoloz
817:Dfrg.
689:Chat
683:Pedro
551:Comet
351:count
269:from
224:from
124:panda
69:(UTC)
33:that
16:<
1541:Sad
1242:talk
1233:here
1231:and
1229:here
1225:here
1220:and
1215:here
1211:here
1025:talk
781:talk
717:Jmlk
676:best
536:ddie
496:talk
381:rfar
363:logs
331:talk
307:See
212:RfAs
204:RfAs
182:and
78:talk
67:2007
1645:Hús
1567:Lar
1516:not
1189:mit
1186:her
1048:ggy
997:mit
994:her
864:ggy
820:msc
800:yan
797:Ark
629:fon
624:Gan
601:and
387:spi
357:AfD
275:not
1689::
1655:nd
1603:|
1569::
1565:++
1359:}}
1353:{{
1281:ɹ
1275:/
1227:,
1182:ki
1179:Wi
990:ki
987:Wi
784:)
686:|
502:).
498:•
375:lu
281:A:
257:A:
236:A:
200:A:
194:3.
171:A:
165:2.
151:A:
145:1.
37:.
1650:ö
1624:H
1575:c
1573:/
1571:t
1485:A
1268:r
1244:)
1240:(
1174:~
1051:/
1043:1
1038:G
1027:)
1023:(
1011:»
982:~
907:C
905:•
903:T
901:•
867:/
859:1
854:G
778:(
727:7
722:1
659:S
567:♠
529:E
494:(
471:5
468:1
389:)
384:·
378:·
372:·
366:·
360:·
354:·
347:·
340:·
334:·
329:(
319:.
81:·
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.