888:- Lack of mainspace contributions and lack of interactions with others. While Citicat has a number of mainspace edits, these related to deleting content rather him contributing content. A review of Citicat's edit summaries between when he essentially started contributing to Knowledge (XXG) in January 2007 and today shows that most of Citicat's edits to Knowledge (XXG) are removal of content through reverting the work of other editors. When not reverting, Citicat helps delete content at AfD. While such edits are important, they do not provide enough broad experience to deal with the admin tools. Citicat has had many user talk page posts. However, these mostly are follow up messages to let the contributor know that he reverted their work.
1183:
miss the point. BLP isn't just a legal safeguard, it reflects a sense of ethics and responsibility - one made particularly necessary by the high google profile our articles receive. Weakly sourced negative information is all the more likely to be around where someone is recently deceased (given the lower legal controls of such info) and in some cases we need to be vigilant as a result - the distress to friends and relatives if we slip up can be just as great as where the subject is living. As pointed out, the principle was far from unamimously supported by ArbCom (though neither was it rejected outright), but I think its a matter on which we should apply judgment in individual cases. I intend to think on this further.
85:) - I have been an active editor since December of '06. In that period of time, somewhat more than half of my editing activity has been on maintenance tasks, including (though certainly not solely) removing vandalism and discouraging vandals. I feel that Knowledge (XXG) has become the best overall source for general knowledge, and I'm proud to contribute towards it's continued growth. I feel administrative tools would allow me to be more useful by focusing on backlogged areas.
550:
316:
question were in reference to my interpretation of a controversial issue, and when I stated "how I truthfully feel" I was referring to not answering the question in a manner to appease the questioner, only honestly. Now what was the question again? Oh yes. I would not go against guidelines based on personal opinion.
222:. Does this mean that biographies of dead people don't need to be sourced? Of course not. But the immediacy of sourcing that applies to living people does not apply to the dead. (Especially since primary sources in regard to the long deceased may be hard to come by - ever try to dig up a first hand account of
126:, and would be taking part in the maintenance of that page. I also have nominated a number of articles for Speedy Deletion, and would be analyzing Speeding Deletion requests. I take part in many deletion debates, and would be involved on the closing end. Also, I would in general follow administrator backlog.
1347:
given the sysop bit, I urge him to take things slow. Still, from my review of the contributions, looks like a solid editor with good judgement and I can't see him abusing the tools. But the lack of experience in interacting with other users is somewhat problematic, enough so that I'm not comfortable
1182:
Remaining neutral. I'm a little uncomfortable with the answer to Q.4. I don't think the application of BLP to a recently deceased person can be ruled out so straight forwardly and the comment "the immediacy of sourcing that applies to living people does not apply to the dead" seems to me to slightly
315:
Let me put it this way, if you invite me into your house, and tell me to take my shoes off, I don't argue with your about the cleanliness of my shoes, I remove them. I would never assume my opinions on a matter can override the consensus. As to the BLP "deceased" issue, my statements in the previous
296:
As an administrator, you are likely to thrust yourself into the middle of a controversial matter where no matter what you do will turn some people off. Under such circumstances and when implementing a diplomatic solution to the matter, do you feel it more important to rely on your personal views/how
1092:
Yes, you're right. I phrased my comment as such partially to see his reaction to the stress during the RFA. In fact, he took the concern seriously, was completely civil, and worked almost alone to source and format the article in the last 24 hours. So his handling of the situation was excellent and
217:
Does BLP apply the same to the deceased as the living? No. The reason why BLP are treated differently from any article information is for the potential to do harm to the reputation of the subject which (metaphysics aside) you don't do to a dead person. Another reason is the potential for litigation
183:
and asking him to consider working on other areas, but in the end decided to merely leave the issues as there appeared to be other editors more involved in balancing out his views. I will admit to occasionally having had a peek at his contributions, and did once add a clarification to a page he
825:
per my original observations - good vandal fighter and sensible XfD contribs. My concerns about BLP are largely satisfied by edits made to the article in question and his follow up below suggests he is sensitive to the need for rigorous BLP-like sourcing to articles of the recently deceased.
891:
Citicat has had few true conversations with others on
Knowledge (XXG). Because of the lack of actual participation in the encyclopaedia and concerns over the ability to communicate with his fellow Wikipeidans on matters urelated to deleting their content, I think oppose is appropriate. --
615:
Citicat handled the BLP issue I mentioned well, has intelligent contributions to AFD that indicate he will close discussions well, and a solid recent history of AIV reports followed by blocks. My only other comment is that we can't merge content from articles and then delete
1197:
I can't argue with your point concerning the recently deceased. However, the question in question was "Is this your analysis of BLP?" An in my opinion this isn't covered by BLP. There is certainly continued controversy over a policy that includes the recently deceased (see
705:
Not to be an impingement on you
Frederick, but that is a rather low criteria, and your !vote might not be given too much weight when you have such low standards. Many very new users are not vandals, but by your criteria, you would support them for the tools. See my point?
178:
I have been fortunate to be involved in very few conflicts to this point. The only one of any breadth would be with an editor I felt was using article pages to push his own political agenda. After having several of my edits reverted, I attempted to point him towards
954::"Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: * With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.". I don't want to get into an AFD here, so I'll leave it at that.
251:
To be honest, I feel you are asking a loaded question by asking my opinion on a controversial issue. The discussion on that page went 3/4/1. Whatever answer I give is likely to turn some people off. So I could only answer how I truthfully
154:, people who are really interesting and might be found from other articles (yes, I do a lot of editing involving sports, which I feel might be a trifle under-represented). As far as the most helpful towards the project, I work a lot on
200:
From your comments below, it seems you are under the impression that BLP applies only to living people, and that controversial facts about them are the only ones which need to be urgently sourced. Is this your analysis of BLP?
235:
684:. I like his tactful response to q4, which (with respect) was an unreasonable and loaded question to ask of an admin candidate, especially as policy on BLP is in a state of flux. Also, clearly an experienced editor.
579:
I'm just curious: after I vote the "score" will be (5/0/5). Numbers notwithstanding, what happens if we get more "neutrals" than "supports"? Okay, seriously, I have plenty of "name recognition" for CitiCat from
1019:-- non-defamatory and properly sourced. If the article isn't properly tagged some vandal could come along and make it defamatory, and we're relying on one/a few editors to scrutinise their watchlists regularly.
230:
controversy), if the subject is not living merely tagging {{fact}} would be appropriate. Anyway, as I noted it was just an ironic aside, that he picked a non-living person as an example in a BLP discussion.
627:
for more dialog about this. Frankly, after your handling of the list I brought up below, I'm confident you will respond to criticism of things like this by simply correcting any errors, so it doesn't worry
845:, no evidence candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. Is someone seriously opposing because the candidate didn't put one of those annoying templates that nobody looks at on a talk page? Ridiculous... --
1048:
184:
edited. (But only because I thought it was clearly necessary). I'm generally a non-confrontational person, and can refrain from replying in a non-helpful way to someone who disagrees with me.
219:
998:
may be added", and anyway, he resolved the real BLP issue well enough that forgetting to place a tag shouldn't be a serious concern on an article that has had BLP material sourced since
142:
Well, from the perspective of what I'm the happiest I've done, it's probably starting articles of interesting people that have either been forgotten or overlooked by history, like
109:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
864:
You seem to be well on your way, but are lacking in just the all-around experience. You have quite some heart it seems, but I am not sure of your readiness for the tools.
1116:-- little other experience but in the mainspace. I feel perhaps a little more experience is needed in all the spaces, but I wont oppose. Chasers comments are also valid.
979:-- I'm disheartened to see someone applying for adminship citing as among their best contributions the biography of a living person untagged as such (I've just tagged).
597:
Neutrals are disregarded except in close calls (usually 75-80%). This is also an unusual case where neutrals will probably turn into supports over the next few days.--
172:
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?
1386:
644:
I like the way he handled the BLP issue, the answers are great, and
Citicat seems like a trustworthy and reliable person. Citicat has the qualities of a good admin. —
350:
1199:
809:. Plenty of activity befitting an admin-to-be, obvious need for the tools, responds calmly when occasional irate editors question tagging of their articles.
556:. No big concerns, this user is trustworthy. Adminship isnt about what you're doing, it's about whether you can be trusted. You have definately shown that.
1158:. Good vandal fighter - correct warning and AIV reports. XfD contributions look intelligent and constructive. However, per Chaser, I'm concerned about the
624:
1404:
1162:
problems with your most edited article. I'll be interested to see what you do with it over the course of this nomination and will reassess my position.
390:
1202:
for this week's bout) and I think there's good reason for additional policy to be created regarding this matter. But that's a story for another page.
377:
420:
33:
17:
414:
470:
951:
1305:
Note - all statements regarding living people in the article have now been sourced. I am continuing to improve the formatting.
1059:, for example, the source is out of date. I'll warn you that you're going to get a mountain of opposes if you don't fix this.--
564:
384:
346:
1015:
The whole point of the tag system is to make sure there's an easy way to check that all biographies of living people are --
1247:
1143:
1124:
714:
674:
433:
370:
82:
870:
923:, I don't think you have enough experience to make informed use of the tools. As recently as two days ago, you made a
159:
466:
432:
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
1241:
1137:
1118:
815:
708:
668:
685:
940:
236:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision#BLP applies only to living people
527:
226:?) In other words where a questionable statement about a living person would need to be reverted (see the
1075:- I don't see why it's completely up to him to fix the article; sure he created it, but it's not like he
666:- seems to have handled the issue well, showing he can react well under pressure and was civil about it.
1331:
1385:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1360:
per
Jreferee's oppose. I agree with his general argument, but it doesn't add up to an oppose for me.
1020:
980:
1239:
Thirded (? lol). If he can prove that he can bring this article up to standard, I might reconsider.
1371:
1352:
1335:
1316:
1300:
1280:
1267:
1249:
1234:
1213:
1192:
1173:
1169:
1145:
1126:
1101:
1087:
1067:
1023:
1010:
983:
965:
945:
915:
902:
880:
849:
837:
833:
817:
810:
801:
789:
777:
767:
755:
747:
732:
716:
700:
688:
676:
658:
636:
605:
592:
571:
561:
543:
513:
492:
473:
327:
307:
278:
263:
246:
209:
96:
1367:
1349:
932:
786:
589:
619:
We have to keep the old articles, even as redirects, to preserve attribution history under the
1272:
You're right. Despite the recent controversy over BLP, Berbick still can't sue us for libel.--
846:
772:
697:
645:
364:
162:
also allows be to find a lot of pages that need help (as well as many that should be deleted).
147:
76:
585:
180:
1328:
1277:
1231:
1098:
1064:
1007:
875:
633:
602:
507:
460:
1254:
I've begun adding inline sources, and should be finished by tomorrow. <ironic aside: -->
1159:
1080:
1076:
1052:
928:
581:
155:
123:
500:
Good honest answers, good contribs, seems to know what needs to be done...bust out a mop.
483:
826:
Adminship is no big deal and on long reflection I think
Citicat will make a decent one.
1164:
1056:
828:
798:
742:
557:
1398:
1363:
976:
895:
764:
488:
300:
288:
151:
1306:
1257:
1203:
1185:
1084:
992:
955:
567:
549:
360:
342:
317:
253:
227:
86:
72:
931:
guidelines. I'm not comfortable with your making deletion decisions just yet. --
1273:
1227:
1094:
1060:
1003:
909:
865:
629:
598:
502:
240:
223:
203:
192:
143:
297:
you truthfully feel about the matter or rely on existing policy/guidelines? --
218:
from the subject, which also does not apply to the deceased (as pointed out in
1379:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1055:
mess (true, some negative things are sourced in articles, but in the case of
1297:
728:
274:
1389:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1343:
A tad early as the opposers correctly point out and if the candidate
61:
726:
for a honest answer to a difficult question. deals well with stress.
620:
64:
1049:
List of professional athletes who have been convicted of crimes
907:
I agree with
Jreferee above. Simply general experience issues.
458:
users who fight vandalism are always welcome to be sysopped.
272:
a fair answer, and not in disagreement with the current policy
136:
What are your best contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), and why?
1255:
actually, Trevor
Berbick isn't a LP</ironic aside: -->
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
999:
924:
889:
696:
is not a vandal thus meets my criteria for adminship --
617:
408:
402:
396:
1079:it. It's up to all of us to fix any problems with
927:argument at AfD that doesn't reflect knowledge of
588:also. I see no reason to doubt his integrity.
116:What admin work do you intend to take part in?
8:
1226:I'll also be re-assessing. It's only fair.--
950:This vote was based on the guideline under
122:I have nominated several serial vandals to
785:I do not think he will abuse the tools!
988:The policy says this tag is optional "
763:See no evidence will abuse the tools.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
7:
24:
1405:Successful requests for adminship
1326:- as per WJBscribe..for now.. --
548:
349:. For the edit count, see the
1:
434:Special:Contributions/Citicat
584:, and I admire his work at
345:'s edit summary usage with
105:Questions for the candidate
1421:
481:No major concerns here. --
1336:20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1317:20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1301:19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1268:05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1250:05:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1235:05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1174:05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1127:05:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1068:05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
572:21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
544:18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
514:15:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
493:05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
474:04:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
210:22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
97:04:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
1382:Please do not modify it.
1372:20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1353:04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1281:06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
1214:05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1193:00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1146:11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
1102:06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
1088:02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
1024:04:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1011:03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
984:01:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
966:17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
946:16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
916:06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
903:14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
881:22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
850:03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
838:03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
818:09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
802:20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
790:16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
778:16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
768:17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
756:10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
733:01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
717:22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
701:18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
689:15:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
677:11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
659:11:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
637:06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
623:, our site license. See
606:06:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
593:05:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
328:03:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
308:02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
279:00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
264:02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
247:01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
1093:befitting of a sysop.--
740:for good answer to Q4.
287:Optional question from
191:Optional question from
39:Please do not modify it
1348:supporting right now.
1156:(Changed from support)
1256:but I get the point.
1047:You need to clean up
234:You may wish to read
34:request for adminship
1135:Changed to support.
521:I have no concerns.
1243:Anonymous Dissident
1139:Anonymous Dissident
1120:Anonymous Dissident
1042:switched to support
952:Notability (people)
710:Anonymous Dissident
670:Anonymous Dissident
358:Links for Citicat:
1246:
1142:
1123:
713:
673:
436:before commenting.
1240:
1136:
1117:
1045:Tentative neutral
707:
667:
570:
148:Choo Choo Coleman
1412:
1384:
1370:
1334:
1313:
1310:
1264:
1261:
1244:
1210:
1207:
1191:
1172:
1140:
1121:
997:
991:
962:
959:
943:
912:
901:
898:
878:
873:
868:
836:
813:
751:
745:
711:
671:
655:
652:
560:
552:
542:
540:
537:
533:
530:
525:
510:
505:
491:
486:
463:
424:
383:
336:General comments
324:
321:
306:
303:
260:
257:
243:
206:
160:building the web
158:, which besides
93:
90:
41:
1420:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1387:this nomination
1380:
1361:
1327:
1311:
1308:
1296:per WJBscribe.
1262:
1259:
1242:
1208:
1205:
1184:
1163:
1138:
1119:
1021:Espresso Addict
995:
989:
981:Espresso Addict
960:
957:
941:
910:
896:
893:
876:
871:
866:
827:
811:
749:
743:
709:
669:
653:
647:
538:
535:
531:
528:
523:
522:
508:
503:
484:
482:
461:
443:
376:
359:
338:
322:
319:
301:
298:
258:
255:
241:
204:
107:
91:
88:
60:; Ended 12:23,
55:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1418:
1416:
1408:
1407:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1375:
1374:
1355:
1338:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1070:
1057:Trevor Berbick
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
970:
969:
968:
918:
905:
883:
853:
852:
840:
820:
812:Kim Dent-Brown
804:
792:
780:
770:
758:
735:
721:
720:
719:
691:
679:
661:
639:
610:
609:
608:
574:
558:Matt/TheFearow
546:
516:
495:
476:
447:
446:
442:
439:
429:
428:
427:
425:
355:
354:
347:mathbot's tool
337:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
291:
284:
283:
282:
281:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
195:
188:
187:
186:
185:
166:
165:
164:
163:
156:Dead End Pages
130:
129:
128:
127:
106:
103:
101:
58:Final (20/5/4)
54:
49:
47:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1417:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1400:
1390:
1388:
1383:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:User:Argyriou
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1350:Pascal.Tesson
1346:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1325:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1188:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1161:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1115:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:, which is a
1050:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
994:
987:
986:
985:
982:
978:
977:Robert Rozier
974:
971:
967:
964:
963:
953:
949:
948:
947:
944:
939:
936:
935:
934:Spike Wilbury
930:
926:
922:
919:
917:
914:
913:
906:
904:
900:
899:
890:
887:
884:
882:
879:
874:
869:
863:
860:
859:
858:
857:
851:
848:
844:
841:
839:
835:
832:
831:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
808:
805:
803:
800:
796:
793:
791:
788:
787:Politics rule
784:
781:
779:
776:
775:
771:
769:
766:
762:
759:
757:
754:
753:
752:
746:
739:
736:
734:
731:
730:
725:
722:
718:
715:
712:
704:
703:
702:
699:
695:
692:
690:
687:
683:
680:
678:
675:
672:
665:
662:
660:
657:
656:
650:
643:
640:
638:
635:
631:
626:
625:Dweller's RFA
622:
618:
614:
611:
607:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
578:
575:
573:
569:
566:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
545:
541:
534:
520:
517:
515:
512:
511:
506:
499:
496:
494:
490:
487:
480:
477:
475:
472:
468:
465:
464:
457:
454:
453:
452:
451:
445:
444:
440:
438:
437:
435:
426:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
382:
379:
375:
372:
369:
366:
362:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
335:
329:
326:
325:
314:
311:
310:
309:
305:
304:
295:
292:
290:
286:
285:
280:
277:
276:
271:
265:
262:
261:
250:
249:
248:
245:
244:
237:
233:
232:
229:
225:
221:
216:
213:
212:
211:
208:
207:
199:
196:
194:
190:
189:
182:
177:
174:
173:
171:
168:
167:
161:
157:
153:
152:Robert Rozier
149:
145:
141:
138:
137:
135:
132:
131:
125:
121:
118:
117:
115:
112:
111:
110:
104:
102:
99:
98:
95:
94:
84:
81:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
59:
53:
50:
48:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1381:
1378:
1362:
1357:
1344:
1340:
1323:
1307:
1293:
1258:
1204:
1186:
1165:
1153:
1152:
1113:
1111:
1110:
1072:
1044:
1041:
1033:
1032:
1016:
972:
956:
937:
933:
920:
908:
894:
885:
861:
855:
854:
842:
829:
822:
806:
794:
783:Weak Support
782:
773:
760:
748:
741:
737:
727:
723:
698:Fredrick day
693:
681:
663:
648:
646:
641:
612:
576:
553:
526:
518:
501:
497:
478:
459:
455:
449:
448:
431:
430:
417:
411:
405:
399:
393:
387:
380:
373:
367:
318:
312:
299:
293:
273:
254:
239:
228:Chris Benoit
214:
202:
197:
175:
169:
139:
133:
119:
113:
108:
100:
87:
79:
71:
68:
57:
56:
51:
46:
38:
30:
28:
797:the above.
467:(Highlights
462:Black Harry
224:Shakespeare
144:Louis Klotz
1017:and remain
565:(Contribs)
441:Discussion
31:successful
799:Acalamari
471:Contribs)
403:block log
351:talk page
220:this page
1399:Category
897:Jreferee
765:Davewild
371:contribs
302:Jreferee
289:Jreferee
83:contribs
1358:neutral
1341:Neutral
1324:Neutral
1294:Neutral
1154:Neutral
1114:Neutral
1085:Useight
1073:Comment
1034:Neutral
1000:day one
973:Oppose.
847:Rory096
843:Support
823:Support
807:Support
795:Support
774:Peacent
761:Support
738:Support
724:Support
694:Support
682:Support
664:Support
642:Support
613:Support
586:WP:DEAD
577:Support
554:Support
519:Support
498:Support
489:iva1979
479:Support
456:Support
450:Support
378:deleted
361:Citicat
343:Citicat
181:WP:SOAP
73:Citicat
52:Citicat
1368:(talk)
1332:styles
1274:Chaser
1228:Chaser
1170:scribe
1160:WP:BLP
1095:Chaser
1081:WP:BLP
1061:Chaser
1053:WP:BLP
1004:Chaser
929:WP:BIO
921:Oppose
911:Daniel
886:Oppose
862:Oppose
856:Oppose
834:scribe
686:Walton
630:Chaser
599:Chaser
590:Shalom
582:WP:AFD
562:(Talk)
242:Daniel
205:Daniel
193:Daniel
62:7 July
1329:Comet
628:me.--
616:them.
568:(Bot)
385:count
252:feel.
67:(UTC)
16:<
1309:Citi
1260:Citi
1206:Citi
1200:here
1189:away
1077:owns
958:Citi
942:talk
925:keep
867:Jmlk
621:GFDL
415:rfar
397:logs
365:talk
341:See
320:Citi
256:Citi
150:and
89:Citi
77:talk
65:2007
1312:Cat
1298:One
1263:Cat
1209:Cat
1187:WjB
1166:WjB
1083:.
1002:.--
993:Blp
975:Re
961:Cat
830:WjB
729:DGG
539:mit
536:her
509:fon
504:Gan
421:spi
391:AfD
323:Cat
275:DGG
259:Cat
146:,
124:AIV
92:Cat
1401::
1345:is
1276:-
1230:-
1097:-
1063:-
1006:-
996:}}
990:{{
654:as
632:-
601:-
532:ki
529:Wi
409:lu
313:A:
294:5.
238:.
215:A:
198:4.
176:A:
170:3.
140:A:
134:2.
120:A:
114:1.
36:.
1278:T
1232:T
1112:#
1099:T
1065:T
1008:T
938:♫
877:7
872:1
750:W
744:A
651:n
649:A
634:T
603:T
524:~
485:S
469:|
423:)
418:·
412:·
406:·
400:·
394:·
388:·
381:·
374:·
368:·
363:(
353:.
80:·
75:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.