454:: If I read one more comment about "He'll make a great candidate in another couple of months" I'll scream. Knowledge needs admins outside America that can deal with vandalism while most of our present admins are either sleeping or at work. Just because someone has been here for 2 or 3 months doesn't always read that they haven't studied policies and guidelines too. There are also admins that have been promoted with less experience and less time on the project. For this reason I see no reason at all to refuse.
1015:
dictated by my interpretation of
Knowledge policy. The first think I look at when warning a vandal is when were they last warned? when were they last blocked? I am very concious of what there last warning was the first think I look at is what the last warning was, what level it was and often what article it was. If I was the last person to warn somebody, and I feel that the edits, although vandalism, were made in good faith, I prefer to stronly err on the side of
491:. The combination of a dedicated vandal-fighter and a contributor of meaningful content in mainspace is always good to see and I have no qualms that the candidate would misuse the tools. The concerns expressed below about needing a bit more experience are reasonable and frankly this RfA probably will not be successful, but if that is the case I hope the candidate can build on his good record in the future and return here in due course.
255:, I have started working on that projects project pages, with categories and templates, trying to make the sections more informative and usefull. With a strong background in programming, I am enjoying creating templates and working on improving my template creating skills. However, I think that fun is important too so ,on a Slightly more humorous note, I think I have added some excellent questions to
503:. An absolutely fantastic Wikipedian who has already done a lot of great things for our encyclopedia, despite only being here for two months. I personally loved his responses to the questions; they were honest and well thought out. Objections raised below seem weak as well. I would be doing him an injustice if I did not vote support, even if he could benefit from a couple months more experience. —
201:
Information
Science, understand that IP address can very often repressent a large group of people and extra criteria should be taken into effect when blocking edits from anons. However, I would not limit my tasks to vandal patrol. I, also partake in new page patrol and marking pages for speedy deletion and so I would also assist with
1241:
one-on-one on user talk pages. And as others have said, a month or two just isn't enough time to get a solid grasp on policy etc or for us or you to know if your editing is sustainable. I know some people will support after 3-4 months, but I don't think 6 months is too much to ask for and will rarely support anyone under that.
1287:. I was originally going for Weak Oppose, but this is a good candidate so I decided to just stay neutral. This user have really only been active for two months (97% of the edits), and it seems to me that he's rather inexperienced in many fields (image, category, template). The one that strikes me the most is a total
1577:— There is virtue in exploring enough to understand Knowledge well before becoming an admin. And many editors pass through like burning stars; admins need to demonstrate some dedication. See you back when you have a few more months with Knowledge; with the number of edits you've accumulated, it should be easy -
1033:
Chris raises a very valid point here, does an IP vandal with a t3 warning 2 weeks ago get a t4 warning if they vandalise today, or do we go back to a t1, do we assume it's the same user or a different user who has been assigned the IP address, I've hunted high and low looking for a definitive answer
275:
I think edit conflicts are kind of silly. I am always very appreciative of other editors edits to articles that I have created or contributed significant amounts of content too. I understand that there are 2 sides to every story and that it takes 2 people to have an editing conflict. I try to look
1019:
and give the user a second test1. I often very rapid at reverting vandalism, perhaps they did not see the changes, and they wanted to try again? I do not know. I generally only do this in cases of simple, non blatant vandalism. If any of the above cited sources were of blatant vandalism, then I
1004:
but its also important to ensure that warnings are given appropriately. I love the enthusiasm and hard work you are volunteering to the project, I just think you need some more time and sometimes you need to be a little more careful. I look forward to being able to support you in the future. Best,
378:
This RfA might have been a little bit premature, but I've witnessed this user's good work far too many times to refrain from supporting just because of a temporal sine qua non. Good answers, denote knowledge of
Knowledge's areas where he's willing to collaborate with the admin tools. I don't really
1014:
I am reluctant to rebute a comment on my own RFA, I want to let it play out and not make it a mater of, "politics", or a test of my ability to cover my own ass. However, this is a topic I feel strongly on. Yes, I may be lenient on vandals. I, however, believe it is waranted, and my leniancy is
723:
Hmmm... I don't mean to be un-nice and useless... I am just a little blunt. What I mean to say is, Chris is fails my time requirements by a lot (active participation since Oct. 10) and the image shows that he is not up to date on changes in fair use policy. Image use and deletion policy is on the
1327:
Although you're a fantastic contributor to
Knowledge thus far, I unfortunately have to go neutral on your RfA. There's no problem in what you're doing, but more of a concern regarding your experience on Knowledge. I think if you re-apply in 2-3 months, you'll definitely get the support of almost
1198:
Could you please elaborate when you call be, "belligerent"? It is not meant offensivley, however, I have made every point to respong tactfully to criticism and have had no problem admitting when I am wrong. If there is any particular behaviour that you particulary consider belligerent, I would
284:
just because I personally thought it was well handled. When it comes to stress, well, I dont believe that it serves that great a purpose. I am a firm believer that there is somebody greater than me out there and who is in control of my life. I just live my life to the best of my abilities. I
200:
does not mean blocking everybody that is reported. When on anti-vandal patrol, I always make a point to always give an appropriate number of warnings, and sometimes extra if I feel that the edits are not malicious. When on anti-vandal patrol, I mostly patrol anon edits. I ,having my degree in
1240:
per Crazy and
Gwernol. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with your edit stats. I don't think there's enough talk:mainspace edits and the vast majority seem to be project tagging. We need to be able to see how you interact in content disputes and other article issues with people in groups, not just
1088:
and start the sequence again, but that's not what happened here. Always assume good faith but if a user clearly demonstrates they are not acting in good faith, take action to protect the articles they are attacking. By the way Chris, good faith edits are never considered vandalism, see
1314:
I agree with AQu01rius, I think that this user is a great candidate but hasn't been contributing long enough. Chris has recently spiked in edits from virtually none. I would definitely support in a few months. His personal anti-vandalism templates are good though :)
259:, not to give myself a better score (considering I am outside of the top 20) but because I thought that the behaviours exhibited were the behavior of somebody dedicated to Knowledge (Yes, My girlfriend has asked if Knowledge meant more to me than her.).
417:
I count at leats 5,000 edits this month alone, I don't really care how few months he has spent on wikipedia, he has obviously spent many hours on here. I have many months in wikipedia, and have done knowhere near as much for wikipedia.
1020:
am in the wrong. I will not claim that I am perfect and am always open for improvement. So, thank you for bringint this to my attention. I will take it into account, however, when appropriate I will contine to assume good faith per
430:
Chrislk02 is a good editor and diligent vandal fighter. His activity might only have reached the current hights in the last two months, but evenso I believe (and have the gut feeling) that he would make a great administrator.
276:
at things through other peoples eyes and understand where they are coming from. That being said, the biggest conflict I have been in was really another user making a personal attack on me for creating the article on the
964:- Your edit count is good, but if you maybe waited a couple of months (try late January or February) at this edit rate, you would most likely be accepted, since all of the oppose votes are on your 2 month active period.
195:
backlog because there appears to be few administrators watching the page. I believe that I could be an asset to
Knowledge by being on Vandal patrol during these time. But, I think it is important to note that watching
795:. Seems like a great candidate for adminship in 2-3 months. However, since he's only been active since last month, I have to oppose at this time. Keep up the good work, though. It looks like you're on the right track!
1396:, good vandal fighter, but needs more time and experience in the admin proccess. It's not only vandal fighting that is in admin work, lots of administrative participation, xFDs etc, handling conflict (Mediation etc.)
205:. In all honesty, my strong points are anti vandalism and new page patrol. However, I am an overachiever and find fufillment in being a well rounded individual. Other areas that I have started dabbling in are
856:
If he has that rationale, it's even worse. People who vandalize once don't automatically cause subsequent edits to be vandalism. A user who thinks that is bad enough, without having the power to actually block.
553:
While you are a relatively new user your hard work is very much appreciated and your mainspace makes up for it. If this adminship run fails please do not lose hope, you are a very good user and deserve this
1463:
There is obviously nothing worth an oppose vote, which is why my vote is neutral. Your contributions and vandal fighting are very valuable, but you only need more time around and participation in XfDs. ←
903:
per short active editing time, and not particlarly strong answers to questions (they don't really tell me much). Seems like a pleasant user and should be ready in a couple months, as others have said. --
988:
adds a test3, then ten minutes after that you add yet another test1, when test4 would have been appropriate. If this was an isolated case I wouldn't worry, but the same pattern is happening a lot:
763:
COMMENT -- Time spent should not alone be a reason to oppose. Check his merit in terms of how good his edits are, how good he is with the community, how well he seems to know the rules, etc.
712:
and took that into account before uploading the image. If it is still believed that it is not fair use, I have no problem removing the image! Thank you for bringing it to my attention!
239:. For these articles I actually went to the library, checked out books, read them, did the research and then put them in an article. Other articles that I am particulary proud of are
708:
It is ok! Thanks for the defence bubba! When it comes down to it I believed the image to be fair use. I have disputed it om the image talk page. I know the policy regarding fair use
379:
expect him to run amok if promoted. If this RfA fails, I hope that Chris will not be discouraged and may continue with such excellent work in order try again in a couple of months.--
269:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
100:
I am playing down his VP and NP duties, but just check his contribs and you will find he follows policy to the letter and would benefit from the extra tools to get the job done
217:
and imposing appropriate blocks. All of that being said, I would anticipate any tasks that I may or may not be currently aware of that could enhance overall enhance
Knowledge.
880:- Too new, not enough Knowledge discussions and edits (in my opinion, though you have way more than me.), and for other reasons stated above. Keep up the editing, though.--
811:
is not vandalism. It may very well be wrong, but it isn't vandalism, and calling it such is a slap in the face to the person who added it. 4 WP talk edits is bad, too. -
247:
Now, Everywhere I see a book, or a magazine, I see it as a source for a
Knowledge article. I have recently started in the template space, especially associated with
1644:
306:
158:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
97:
and is very knowledgeable in many areas, to boot. On top of this, two of the articles he created made their way to the "Did You Know?" section of the main page.
285:
believe that stress from anything, including
Knowledge, will not enhance my life and is really serves no purpose, especially for stuff that is out of my control.
1513:. Hasn't been a lot of time since his editor review and this RfA. I suggest more time and experience on Knowledge, this includes getting at least one article
1662:
772:
And why can't time spent be a reason to oppose? Sometimes, the amount of time spent is simply not enough to show someone will be a good admin candidate. -
213:
which appears to have a backlog that could use some assistance. I belive that I could be fair in evaluating administrator notices for violations of the
104:. Also contributes to AfDs, and is not averse to reforming opinion given new information or upon further reflection – debating the facts along the way.
1080:
before and Chris went back to a test1, three times. The IP has a long history of vandalism and was vandalising the the same articles, pushing the same
1352:
Plenty of edits racked up from reverting vandalism. However, I would like to see a few more months of activity, and more experience in other areas. --
1487:
Excellent vandal fight, but just not enough experience. Give it a for more months, and some Project Space contribution and you'll have my support.
85:) – I would like to nominate Chrislk02 because he is a phenomenal Wikipedian and vandal patroller. He is courteous and helpful (his user page just
178:
1176:? On top of that, too new, too belligerent. Find another nominator, and branch out to putting good work into articles, rather than inducing
1364:
1358:
1102:
I respect your opinion. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will work on that in the future! I am human, I make mistakes!
934:
1376:
Superb vandal-bopper who continuously beats me to reverts, but this is slightly premature. I'd happily support in a few months' time.
863:
817:
778:
1072:
As I pointed out in my comment and the specific examples I gave, these are not cases where an IP had a test3 2 weeks before. Look at
698:
655:
636:
341:
232:
114:
1060:
476:
30:
17:
1213:
Just a little too new. About another month, month and a half is needed (for experience reasons). I would surely support then. -
170:
82:
515:, seems to know his way around vandal fighting, and doesn't seem to be a sullen killjoy. Would make a good admin, I think.
280:. I believe that I handled the situation humorously and appropriatley. I actually have the conversation at the top of my
406:
1606:
good contributions against vandals, yet I also think that time within in the community is a valuable as ones edit count.
1223:
724:
reading list for admin candidates, and IMO he clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of replaceable fair use. -
834:
has already blatantly vandalized that article earlier that day, then proceeded to add dubious and unsourced content.
302:
166:
1136:, future support probable. Lack of experience, and it looks like when you got popups you stop writing articles. ~
989:
575:
225:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1496:
1073:
997:
977:
174:
1435:, etc). I don't DIStrust you, and therefore this is not an oppose, but you give me nothing to base trust on.
931:
948:
1594:
He is an excellent contributor so I cannot vote against him, but I think he is a little too inexperienced.
1383:
1219:
1177:
993:
838:
671:
435:
94:
1488:
610:
1625:
1582:
1578:
1529:
1408:
1254:
1243:
1122:
Looks like he could well be a good admin, but would like to see more. Perhaps late winter/early spring.
928:
831:
695:
652:
633:
588:
386:
338:
111:
1643:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
764:
740:
It is ok, stuff like that, for somebody with an RFA, you should be un-nice! It def does not fall under
1629:
1610:
1598:
1586:
1569:
1557:
1536:
1505:
1478:
1455:
1411:
1405:
1397:
1388:
1368:
1344:
1319:
1306:
1272:
1258:
1247:
1232:
1203:
1193:
1164:
1152:
1140:
1128:
1106:
1097:
1067:
1028:
1009:
968:
956:
939:
913:
895:
868:
851:
822:
799:
783:
767:
748:
735:
716:
701:
684:
658:
639:
624:
594:
560:
548:
532:
519:
507:
495:
483:
422:
409:
397:
370:
358:
344:
138:
117:
1227:
1137:
1052:
731:
620:
468:
1297:
1620:
1546:
1400:
1338:
1301:
909:
543:
281:
256:
76:
504:
1555:
1353:
1189:
1161:
252:
248:
236:
93:
on here (member since April, 2006) and seems to know policy very well indeed. He is a member of
984:}} at 19:44, then a minute later you add another test1 (why not a test2?). A few minutes later
1465:
1378:
1214:
846:
796:
679:
529:
443:
1524:
692:
649:
630:
580:
570:
492:
391:
335:
108:
1252:
Also, I must add that I'm not at all impressed by the answers, especially to question one.
1446:
1173:
1044:
726:
664:
615:
555:
460:
1618:- hoping to support in future. Chris is very helpful with setting up in the DYK process.
130:
All I would like to say is that he has fought vandalism more than anyone that I know on
1607:
1566:
1565:. I'd recommend that you withdraw because you aren't going to get it on this occasion.
1330:
1200:
1103:
1025:
981:
976:
sorry, but I am uncomfortable with the way you are using test warnings. Take a look at
905:
745:
741:
713:
538:
516:
298:
72:
1172:. Holy shit, your nominator attempted to demonstrate how worthy you were by attacking
134:. He has helped me and many other Wikipedians. He deserves Adminship more than anyone.
1656:
1551:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1316:
1185:
1123:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1035:
1021:
1016:
1001:
419:
277:
240:
214:
210:
206:
197:
192:
188:
1518:
1514:
1432:
1149:
1094:
1006:
858:
835:
812:
773:
709:
668:
432:
353:
191:. I am often on in the early mornings to late afternoons and very often run into
985:
381:
367:
135:
124:
1637:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1595:
1436:
1269:
965:
244:
107:
This may be my first nomination, but they won't get any better than this one.
62:
1291:
Knowledge talk, which is not good. Good user, don't think he's ready though.
405:
Helps to beat back the ever rising tide of vandalism. Avoids edit conflicts.
882:
131:
1419:
You're a great vandal fighter, but I need to see you participate in XfDs (
202:
1544:
A good vandal fighter but the lack of experience is a concern here. --
691:
OK, I will bite my lip. Just asking for due consideration that's all.
1647:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1268:
Insufficient amount of time on the project. Try again in 90 days.--
165:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
65:
89:
helpfulness) and seems to handle all situations admirably. He
613:. Candidate has less than tow months active participation. -
145:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1034:
for this predicament, but the best policy does seem to be
1199:
kindly accept the criticism and work to improve myself.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1084:. I agree that if there has been a significant gap, you
828:
808:
663:
Hold your horses Bubba. That first comment was neither
645:
667:and I fail to see what's wrong with that diff.
1180:. I'd be much more inclined to support then.
830:of the article in question and it seems that
231:The articles that I am most pleased with are
8:
187:I would anticipate being the most help with
1160:per Crzrussian. You need more time here. -
629:Woh! Seven minutes! A snap decision! ;)
568:Seems completely trustworthy to me. --
235:, and my additions to the article on
7:
1076:: the IP had a vandal warning a few
1663:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
352:great vandal fighter. Good luck. --
24:
1431:, etc), and conflict resolution (
1350:Neutral, leaning towards support.
744:and i did not take it as uncivil.
528:Is new but could use a mop well.
233:Joint Expedition Against Franklin
150:I humbly accept this nomination.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
171:Category:Administrative backlog
1517:or at least a couple articles
644:And did you really need to do
448:12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC8)
305:. For the edit count, see the
1:
1537:15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1506:20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1479:15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1456:12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1412:04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1389:03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1369:00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1345:00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1320:00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1307:00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1141:05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1129:04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1098:04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1068:03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1029:01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1010:21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
969:18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
957:17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
940:14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
914:06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
896:05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
852:12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
823:00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
800:00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
749:00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
736:00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
717:00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
702:00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
685:00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
659:00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
640:00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
625:23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
496:19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
484:16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
423:11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
410:02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
398:02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
371:01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
359:00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
345:23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
139:23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
118:22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1630:00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
1611:10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1599:20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1587:15:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1570:21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
1558:02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
1273:19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1259:16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1248:16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1233:04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
1204:01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1194:01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1165:20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1153:01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
1107:02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
869:01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
784:05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
768:04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
595:04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
561:22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
549:13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
533:04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
520:11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
508:06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
179:administrators' reading list
301:'s edit summary usage with
154:Questions for the candidate
1679:
173:, and read the page about
167:Category:Knowledge backlog
1201:Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
1104:Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
1026:Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
990:User talk:165.155.128.134
746:Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
714:Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
334:as nominator, of course.
1640:Please do not modify it.
1365:Your wish is my command!
1074:User_talk:206.123.212.67
998:User talk:81.187.253.225
978:User_talk:206.123.212.67
407:Wiki Warfare to Infinity
209:and recently I ran into
61:(15/17/16) Ended 01:47,
40:Please do not modify it.
994:User talk:64.213.196.4
31:request for adminship
921:— per CrazyRussian.
611:Image:Cessna 165.jpg
609:WAY too new and per
947:— per CrazyRussian.
832:User:207.54.102.45
396:
251:. On the note of
237:Franklin, Virginia
1481:
1474:
1305:
1231:
938:
867:
821:
782:
734:
623:
547:
380:
1670:
1642:
1554:
1549:
1534:
1532:
1527:
1501:
1492:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1453:
1443:
1403:
1387:
1361:
1356:
1341:
1336:
1333:
1295:
1294:
1217:
1192:
1126:
1065:
1057:
1049:
1043:
980:. You issue a {{
953:
952::) Dlohcierekim
937:
922:
894:
892:
887:
861:
843:
827:I looked at the
815:
776:
730:
676:
619:
591:
587:
583:
578:
573:
558:
541:
481:
473:
465:
459:
440:
394:
389:
384:
366:as co-nominator.
356:
292:General comments
123:Co-nominated by
42:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1645:this nomination
1638:
1575:Pile on Neutral
1547:
1545:
1530:
1525:
1523:
1499:
1490:
1466:
1447:
1438:
1401:
1377:
1367:
1359:
1354:
1339:
1334:
1331:
1292:
1184:
1138:trialsanderrors
1124:
1061:
1053:
1045:
1041:Kind Regards -
1039:
951:
935:52278 Alpha 771
929:Fenton, Matthew
923:
888:
883:
881:
866:
839:
820:
781:
672:
665:nice nor useful
589:
585:
581:
576:
571:
556:
477:
469:
461:
457:Kind Regards -
455:
436:
392:
387:
382:
354:
55:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1676:
1674:
1666:
1665:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1633:
1632:
1613:
1601:
1589:
1572:
1560:
1539:
1508:
1482:
1458:
1414:
1391:
1371:
1363:
1347:
1322:
1309:
1276:
1275:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1235:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1167:
1155:
1143:
1131:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1000:. I'm all for
971:
959:
942:
916:
898:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
862:
816:
802:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
777:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
689:
688:
687:
642:
598:
597:
563:
551:
535:
523:
510:
498:
486:
452:Strong Support
449:
425:
412:
400:
373:
361:
347:
323:
322:
314:
313:
312:
310:
303:mathbot's tool
294:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
263:
262:
261:
260:
220:
219:
218:
175:administrators
156:
155:
148:
147:
54:
49:
47:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1675:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1658:
1648:
1646:
1641:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1617:
1614:
1612:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1528:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1494:
1493:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1470:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1442:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1162:Mailer Diablo
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1148:per Gwernol.
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1121:
1118:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1058:
1056:
1050:
1048:
1042:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
972:
970:
967:
963:
960:
958:
955:
954:
946:
943:
941:
936:
933:
930:
926:
920:
917:
915:
911:
907:
902:
899:
897:
893:
891:
886:
879:
878:Strong Oppose
876:
870:
865:
860:
855:
854:
853:
850:
849:
844:
842:
837:
833:
829:
826:
825:
824:
819:
814:
810:
806:
803:
801:
798:
794:
791:
785:
780:
775:
771:
770:
769:
766:
762:
750:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
728:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
700:
697:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
677:
675:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
657:
654:
651:
647:
643:
641:
638:
635:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
617:
612:
608:
607:Strong Oppose
605:
604:
603:
602:
596:
593:
592:
584:
579:
574:
567:
564:
562:
559:
552:
550:
545:
540:
539:dario vet ^_^
536:
534:
531:
527:
524:
521:
518:
514:
511:
509:
506:
502:
499:
497:
494:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
474:
472:
466:
464:
458:
453:
450:
447:
446:
441:
439:
434:
429:
426:
424:
421:
416:
413:
411:
408:
404:
401:
399:
395:
390:
385:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:Grayson d. k.
365:
362:
360:
357:
351:
348:
346:
343:
340:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
327:
321:
320:
319:
318:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
291:
290:
283:
279:
278:USS Hunchback
274:
271:
270:
268:
265:
264:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:USS Hunchback
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
224:
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
199:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
160:
159:
153:
152:
151:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
136:Grayson d. k.
133:
128:
127:
126:
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
105:
103:
98:
96:
95:many projects
92:
88:
84:
81:
78:
74:
70:
69:
67:
64:
59:
53:
50:
48:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1639:
1636:
1626:bananabucket
1619:
1615:
1603:
1591:
1574:
1562:
1541:
1522:
1510:
1498:
1497:
1489:
1484:
1468:
1467:
1460:
1449:
1440:
1437:
1416:
1393:
1382:
1373:
1349:
1329:
1324:
1311:
1288:
1285:Weak Neutral
1284:
1278:
1277:
1265:
1253:
1242:
1237:
1215:Royalguard11
1210:
1181:
1169:
1157:
1145:
1133:
1119:
1077:
1062:
1054:
1046:
1040:
973:
961:
949:
944:
924:
918:
900:
889:
884:
877:
847:
840:
804:
797:SuperMachine
792:
765:170.215.83.4
725:
680:
673:
648:so quickly?
614:
606:
600:
599:
569:
565:
530:Sharkface217
525:
512:
501:Weak Support
500:
488:
478:
470:
462:
456:
451:
444:
437:
427:
414:
402:
375:
363:
349:
331:
325:
324:
316:
315:
272:
266:
257:WP:HOLICTEST
228:
222:
184:
162:
157:
149:
144:
129:
122:
121:
106:
101:
99:
90:
86:
79:
71:
60:
57:
56:
51:
46:
39:
34:
28:
1579:Williamborg
1526:Michaelas10
1519:good status
1328:everybody.
1300:•
1255:Sarah Ewart
1244:Sarah Ewart
1047:Heligoland
986:User:Elkman
974:Weak Oppose
962:Weak Oppose
493:Newyorkbrad
463:Heligoland
253:WP:AIRCRAFT
249:WP:AIRCRAFT
125:User:Gdk411
1228:Review Me!
932:Lexic Dark
317:Discussion
245:Cessna 165
63:6 December
1608:Gnangarra
1567:Esteffect
1293:AQu01rius
572:P.B. Pilh
517:Lankiveil
307:talk page
299:Chrislk02
282:Talk Page
132:Knowledge
73:Chrislk02
52:Chrislk02
1657:Category
1621:Blnguyen
1515:featured
1491:Canadian
1417:Neutral.
1360:Porpoise
1317:James086
1125:IronDuke
1063:Contribs
554:honor.__
479:Contribs
420:Dolive21
177:and the
83:contribs
1616:Neutral
1604:Neutral
1592:Neutral
1563:Neutral
1552:iva1979
1542:Neutral
1511:Neutral
1485:Neutral
1461:Neutral
1394:Neutral
1374:Neutral
1325:Neutral
1312:Neutral
1279:Neutral
1150:John254
1095:Gwernol
1078:minutes
1007:Gwernol
950:Cheers,
906:Renesis
859:Amarkov
813:Amarkov
774:Amarkov
742:WP:BITE
732:crztalk
621:crztalk
566:Support
526:Support
513:Support
505:Lantoka
489:Support
428:Support
415:Support
403:Support
376:Support
364:Support
355:Majorly
350:Support
332:Support
326:Support
203:CAT:CSD
1531:(Talk)
1429:WP:CFD
1425:WP:MFD
1421:WP:AFD
1384:dzasta
1266:Oppose
1238:Oppose
1211:Oppose
1170:Oppose
1158:Oppose
1146:Oppose
1134:Oppose
1120:Oppose
1091:WP:VAN
1086:WP:AGF
1082:WP:POV
1038:here.
1036:WP:AGF
1022:WP:AGF
1017:WP:AGF
1002:WP:AGF
945:Oppose
925:thanks
919:Oppose
901:Oppose
836:Charon
805:Oppose
793:Oppose
669:Charon
601:Oppose
557:Seadog
433:Charon
215:WP:3RR
211:WP:AN3
207:WP:DYK
198:WP:AIV
193:WP:AIV
189:WP:AIV
87:exudes
1596:TSO1D
1500:Bacon
1433:WP:3O
1409:e Ong
1379:riana
1270:MONGO
1178:churn
982:test1
966:Diez2
864:edits
818:edits
779:edits
710:WP:FU
693:Bubba
650:Bubba
631:Bubba
336:Bubba
109:Bubba
102:quick
91:lives
68:(UTC)
58:Final
33:that
16:<
1583:Bill
1450:talk
1441:rose
1355:Gray
1332:Nish
1302:Talk
1298:User
1224:Desk
1220:Talk
1190:talk
1182:...
1055:Talk
910:talk
848:talk
809:This
681:talk
646:this
590:Talk
544:talk
471:Talk
445:talk
297:See
243:and
169:and
77:talk
66:2006
1473:NAS
1398:Ter
1335:kid
1174:crz
1059:|
1051:|
727:crz
696:hot
653:hot
634:hot
616:crz
475:|
467:|
383:Hús
339:hot
112:hot
1659::
1628:)
1585:)
1521:.
1427:,
1423:,
1406:nc
1340:64
1186:aa
1093:.
1024:-
996:;
992:;
912:)
890:IT
885:SU
807:.
699:ep
656:ep
637:ep
537:--
393:nd
342:ep
273:A:
267:3.
229:A:
223:2.
185:A:
181:.
163:1.
115:ep
37:.
1624:(
1581:(
1548:S
1495:-
1469:A
1452:)
1448:(
1439:S
1402:e
1381:_
1304:)
1296:(
1289:4
1230:)
1226:·
1222:·
1218:(
1188::
927:/
908:(
857:-
845:/
841:X
678:/
674:X
586:/
582:t
577:e
546:)
542:(
522:.
442:/
438:X
388:ö
309:.
80:·
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.