Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Eddie891

6361:, non-admins may close AFD discussions as “no consensus” as well, although this is limited to cases where there is clearly and unambiguously no consensus emerging from the discussion, and where the non-admin is truly experienced in the AfD process (I haven’t endeavoured to do one myself). My point is, I don’t think it’s right to say performing NACs do not involve any judgment at all. True, NACs should be limited to non-controversial cases, but what exactly amounts to a case non-controversial enough for a NAC? A string of poorly argued keep votes against a well-argued nomination is clearly not one of them, and non-admins are often lambasted when they close such discussions as keep, even though it appears there has been a consensus. Distinguishing an unambiguous consensus from a potentially controversial discussion, and determining whether a relist is appropriate in the circumstances could both demonstrate the non-admin’s judgment and experience in the AFD area. 6277:

the judgment necessary to evaluate community consensus as an admin. Speaking of the relist bias, while some (or even many) non-admins do have the penchant to relist everything in spite of a clear consensus (or in ignorance of the soft deletion option), there are circumstances where relists are entirely appropriate. If a non-admin is able to relist appropriately, this helps his case that he is competent in the AfD area. Also, I expected the candidate to point to some experience in closing other discussions, such as RM or other talk page discussions, which would be helpful in demonstrating the candidate's competence. Having said all this though, I am overall satisfied by the response I receive, and I do believe this candidate is a net positive to the project. I'll wait for more questions to emerge before casting my support vote. --

472:, consensus is based upon the strength and merit of arguments rather than the number. So, the best tool to have when closing AFDs is to know what a strong and meritorious argument looks like. While I won't say that my votes are all strong and meritorious, I like to think most of them come pretty close. Further, I've participated in a number of AFDs, and usually watchlist them after voting to see how it plays out. I've seen great arguments advanced, even when I don't agree with them (and I've also seen some pretty poor ones). I see how just about every AFD I vote in, and quite a few that I don't, gets closed. As such, I've learned which arguments to give weight and which to not, what makes a good argument and what makes a poor one. I think that's exactly what matters when it comes to evaluating consensus. Best, 762:(i.e. fresh Editors). As an extension of this question - how would you make Knowledge (XXG) at an aggreate, a friendly place and be more encouraging for new editors. I am a returning editor, and the one thing that strikes me about some of the processes is that these tend to be extremely caustic for new comers. Many a time, rule books, and acronyms are thrown at new comers without much contextualization, coming across as lacking empathy. All of these actions make these forums quite unwelcome to newcomers. And many a time I see Administrators (pardon my broadstroke here) being guilty of these actions. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Good luck. 604:

Otherwise, I'm pretty familiar with most topics to the point where I feel comfortable casting a !vote, though I generally avoid math (because it doesn't make much sense to me) as well as foreign topics that I cannot be certain about (because I don't speak a foreign language well). It's also a matter of where my sourcing is. For instance, I can be pretty certain about many topics by looking at databases and search engines (like Newspapers.com, ProQuest, google books, project MUSE, JSTOR, google) for the coverage we would expect to substantiate notability, even when I don't have an intimate knowledge of the field. Recently, I've been

5927:

3 shows they have learnt from past issues and now know to remain civil and calm in discussions. The large amount of DYKs, GAs and 4 featured content show that they want to improve the encyclopaedia which, after all, is the reason this site exists. The large amount mainspace work that this user has done shows that they understand how mainspace and AfD works. This is vital to close discussions at AfD (which is where they desire to work administratively) as they can understand the reasoning behind the !votes, and have the knowledge of policy and guidelines to find the consensus in discussions.

1393:, but generally process should be followed, particularly to allow community consensus to develop. Our policies have been carefully thought up to allow Knowledge (XXG) to function smoothly. Again, it is important to be cautious not to become wrapped up in minor intricacies of policy, particularly when dealing with new users, but generally we should take care to respect process. For instance, it is important to keep AFD discussions open for seven days not to bother as many people as possible, but to give a chance for many different views to be expressed and give users time to weigh in. Best, 507:, some of which aren't strictly bedded into notability written guidelines, but instead summarise the general viewpoints of most AfDs and their participants. One more common instance is that of national/sub-national politicians, who usually have to be elected to show notability, even if there is significant campaign coverage. What's your viewpoint on amending NPOL (either to explicitly allow/disallow) and if it doesn't change, how would you implement closes in this style (that is, lots of coverage, NPOL potentially not met)? 268:. Each represents a rather extensive project and I learned a lot while undertaking them; for instance before restoring the FP, I had no experience with image restoration, and I'm slightly ashamed to say that I hadn't even heard of Fabian Ware before working on his article. I also owe a lot to the reviewers that have taken their time to patiently work through my mistakes and oversights. Outside of FC, I would consider some of my best content to be article creation. I've really enjoyed throwing together articles like 1164:, which happened to coincide with my wanting to get involved on Knowledge (XXG). I took it very slowly, looked at existing wikipedia articles and fully read the policies, all of which helped. I would urge you not to be 'jealous', after all, Knowledge (XXG) is not a competition. If you are looking for an article to write, just keep your eyes open-- they present themselves (either as stubs or non-existing articles) more often than one might think. I'm happy to discuss this further if you want, just reach out 6343:, I'll note that NACer has been dragged to ANI multiple times over their NAC closes and relistings; I don't believe they did anything wrong; but I remember how much heat they got just for NACing. In fact, it's why I never NACed (and probably never will NAC) an AFD. Nnadi is like the poster-child for NAC-chilling-effect. Hats off to them for persevering through it, but I don't think expecting AFD NACs from RFA candidates is reasonable, given how toxic AFD is generally and towards NACs in particular. 550:

feel very strongly about candidates and their views are not likely to change—nor should they. As a new administrator, I would refrain from closing particularly controversial candidate discussions given that I have my own opinion, and would likely vote in them instead. "No consensus" is valid close, particularly for active political candidates, to a lot of these type discussions, because it's a scenario where there really is not consensus. Best,

2159:, absent some terrible smoking gun. Clueful, very active, a serious content contributor, and responsibly using "pre-admin" bits like PageMover and Rollbacker. I normally don't weigh in this early, and wait for extensive Q&A to develop, but so far I see nothing that gives me concerns. The editor is clearly a net positive and would continue to be one as an admin. PS: I'm not concerned about lack of a long AfD-closure track record; 914:: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate." In that case, deletion or redirection may need to be considered.I think any such discussion needs to be viewed on a case-by-case basis, so allow me to explain this specific case. The article when I nominated it was in a 1684:) to that article. I'm not seeing the coverage that establishes independent notability, with the caveat that I cannot understand any language outside of English (and rudimentary Latin and about 15 words of Spanish). It's very possible that there is sufficient coverage in another language. To answer your more general question, there isn't much wiggle room in notability. Articles have to meet the 1003::Sure, D3 is one of the main tenets of the BEFORE guideline, it says that the fact adequate sourcing is not present in an article "is not a proper basis for a nomination". So this would apply if I took the article to AFD and said 'this topic is clearly non-notable because it has been under-referenced since creation in 2003, and should be deleted immediately'. Of course per guidelines like 3347:- Is not as far as I can tell totally perfect per Lady Bathurst picture not seemingly having cats plus also annoying for me spending 20 minutes looking into the subject background and failing to leverage the image. As that's the nearest to a fault I've found; and per the scrutiny of others I respect; I am left with no option but to fully support at this time. Best wishes! 1050:

a similar process to blocking another user: approach them, on their talk or at a relevant forum, with my issues first. Because I don't intend to be making many blocks, blocking an admin would probably be something I sought other opinion(s) for. Only in the case of egregious things such as an obviously compromised account would I quickly block the admin, before posting on

403:

with it. When I was creating a Knowledge (XXG) account, I was looking for a username that was somewhere between my full name and a complete pseudonym, and that came to mind. So yes, 891 is random, though 8 is my favorite number and 9-1 = 8. As for 892 and 893, it was just adding +1 to the end, hopefully showing a connection to the original, for a alternate account(s).

2482: 6493:, well there are discussions which are clearly unambiguous (or SNOW as you described it), ones that are clearly controversial, and others that seem unambiguous but not clearly so. My understanding is that while non-admins should not close articles in the second category, they may perform a NAC for the third category. This is implicitly allowed per 6446:, well unambiguous consensus does not mean unanimous consensus. I have closed (and seen other non-admins close) AfDs which are not unanimous, but clearly unambiguous (usually because the lone keep / delete vote is clearly not grounded in policy). So naturally you would have to weigh votes when you close any discussion that is not unanimous. -- 1111:. Again, I want to emphasize that these are not areas I would be jumping into as a new admin, but areas that I would be willing to work in as an administrator—I would get more experience, and likely feedback from well-versed admins, in the area before doing these things on my own. I have little interest in being very involved at areas like 2726:- I am impressed with the nominators and the answers to questions. In general I've always had a positive impression of this editor. Since AfD work is an area of interest, I went through a number of contributions there. I am further impressed. This editor is articulate and logical, values GNG but knows how to look beyond it as well. 801:, which has many talented users happy to answer questions. I'd like to get involved at the teahouse in the future, but I already try to practice what I lay out above- explain things carefully, have lots of patience and good faith. I've got no magic solution, no earthshattering ideas, but these steps can and do help quite a bit. Best 779::That's a good question, and certainly Knowledge (XXG) needs to get better at attracting and retaining new users. I think some of the points that you bring up in your question are good ones. Not to respond to a question about too many complex acronyms with more acronyms, but two essays that I often think about in this context are 787:, both rather short and somewhat humorous but very important commentaries about how important it is to avoid unnecessary jargon, and try to make things more accessible. One of the most important things we can do is not assuming that all users inherently understand the processes and guidelines (because new users likely don't — 6395:

expecting NACs from RFA candidates. Instead, I am just interested why they haven’t done much NAC despite declaring interest in the area. I am generally satisfied by their policy-grounded explanation to my question, so count me in as inclining support at this stage (pending the candidates’ reply to other questions). --

335:

over the article that I shouldn't have. Were I in the same situation today, I would assume their suggestions had merit, and work with the user to improve the article. Another time, after a draft of mine was incorrectly speedily deleted for copyright infringement (despite being copied from an existing

6256:

Either you're competent enough to understand how to close based on consensus and our deletion policy or you're not. There are plenty of things an editor can do to demonstrate competency at closing and easy enough to demonstrate compentcy with deletion by participating at AfD. In most realms I try to

5926:

the current !vote tally speaks for itself. This candidate has been shown to be trusted by the community by having no (serious and unstruck) oppose votes and no neutrals, with ~190 supports. To me, one of the most important things that an administrator should be is civil, and their answer to question

1768:

and I was largely stuck at home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This gave me a lot more time to be around on Knowledge (XXG), and as a result I was much more active. I intend to remain pretty active— after thinking about my activities and priorities, I remembered that Knowledge (XXG) is one of

1428:

A minor clarification: I didn't say that I definitely intend to deal with them, but that in the future I could see myself handling them. Regardless, I am happy to answer the question. I feel that CSD criteria should be interpreted strictly. As such, I tend to err on the side of "when in doubt, AFD".

1049:

In theory, yes I would be willing to. Because admins generally have a level of community trust not really given to other users (an RFA being the main vetting process), I would certainly be more cautious in this theoretical situation, as I would if blocking a long-term, respected user. I would follow

6556:

Just noting I generally agree with Barkeep49. While I usually evaluate candidates on temperament more than anything else, a big way for me to question the “has a clue” portion of my criteria is seeing a lot of NAC-esque work at AfD. Sometimes they’re okay, but generally, there’s no need for NACs at

4678:

This candidate is well qualified and has done a very good job of answering the questions. I have a problem with question 5. I object to the notion that AfD participants ought to do NAC closes, and that the lack of NAC closes is somehow suspicious. I was active at AfD for years before agreeing to an

1232:

for an example of a debate where three !votes for 'keep' (and two for 'delete') are advanced, but the correct close would be 'delete', because there is a clear COI and no policy-based arguments for keeping are presented. However, if it is made up of users in good standing who make well-thought out,

938:

C4: "If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.". I would have proposed a merger, but IMO there was nothing really worth keeping, and merging would be adding too much plot to the already decently long

402:

Sure, Eddie is my nickname (my real name is Edward) and several years ago I was signing up for an account on a site I've long left (though the name escapes me). Being spectacularly creative, I tried to make my username 'Eddie' which, no surprise, was taken. The site suggested 'Eddie891', and I went

265: 123:

I'm delighted to nominate Eddie891 for adminship - aside from being a prolific content creator with four featured items, 15 GAs and almost 20 DYKs Eddie is a hard worker at AfD discussions. Throughout the last two years or so I have been impressed by their communication skills, policy knowledge and

6276:

experience in closing AfDs is beneficial. Precisely because it is all too easy for non-admins to lean towards certain options in closing discussions (as Barkeep rightly pointed), the fact that a candidate has NOT done so or fall into common traps such as the relist bias demonstrates that they have

4626:

Well, since about mid-March a great many people have been stuck at home, pretty much chained to their computers, due to a certain global crisis happening. Perhaps you have heard something about it. But if you are really concerned about the change in activity levels, the proper thing to do is to is

3324:

Great content creation, good temperament, why not? Without wanting to disparage the author of Q9, there is nothing in this user's history to indicate that they have attempted to inflate their edit count, their use of semi-automated tools is not concerning - we're mostly talking gnoming with HotCat

1724:

Thanks, that was good advice. I hadn't thought about the possibility of making it a subsection in the other article; I shall contact the original draft author and try to make it so. I think I have gained a better understanding of the Knowledge (XXG) policies on notability vs stubs, and you clearly

1505:

Per your edits and experience may have qualified you to be admin but i have one last question for you. Did you think wikipedia has some editor who bully others and those who are bullied may have been away from editing if you believe in it how can you manage that problem and what are the solutions?

1444:, A7 would not apply, because this is a credible claim of significance (and proves notability if true). In the example given, I would instead nominate this article for G3, because it's blatantly and demonstrably false (Eddie891 is absolutely not a member of the US House, and that's easy to verify). 581:

Your interest in AfD seems quite recent. For example, it seems that you only attended 4 AfDs in 2019. Looking through the list, it's not clear to me what your focus is. There's a few military topics but, otherwise, it seems fairly random. As you intend to concentrate on AfD as an admin, please

549:

of coverage to be considered notable', I understand both opinions and valid points can be made on either side. Not having a notability guideline explicitly favor one over the other while having AFDCO provide some guidance is a fine way for things to work out. As manifests at every turn, some users

3823:. They have good content creation and their work in their expressed area of interest, AfD, seems fine. I couldn't see a CSD log for them, so wasn't able to evaluate their knowledge of speedy deletion, but I trust per their answer to Q14 that they'll take their time before moving into that area.-- 524:

NPOL is certainly a controversial guideline and an interesting case of the relationship between SNG and GNG. Discussions about candidates come around just about every election cycle. The arguments for deletion/redirect usually advanced generally make two points: 1) The candidate is only receiving

6394:

The reason I asked Q5 is because the candidate explicitly mentioned AfD Closes as their main area of focus as an admin. While I would have preferred some NAC, and absent that some closes in other venues such as RM or talk page discussions, I agree NAC closes / relists is not a must, and I am not

439:, you only closed discussions 7 times in 2020, all of which are either procedural closes or withdrawing your own nomination. What is the reason you did not actively perform non-admin closures, and what experience would you point to which demonstrates your ability to evaluate community consensus? 102:

debates, and he puts across his points politely and respectfully, even when others disagree with him. He's also responded well to criticism and feedback over the last few years, and he's grown as an editor as a result. This shows to me he has the right levels of communication and skills to be an

1205:

Well, in this situation, I would opt to !vote and speak my mind, rather than closing the discussion. If I had to close the discussion for some reason, I would hope that I had more specific information, but here's basically how I would go about it. I would ask the following questions (not in any

449:

point 2, a non-admin closure is not appropriate when "The outcome is a close call or likely to be controversial". So I would have been racing to be the first to close afds that are unambiguously 'keep', 'merge', or 'redirect', which really wouldn't demonstrate that I can assess consensus. Even

603:

to find nominations that I feel I can constructively contribute in. You are correct that I pay especially close attention to military topics, because that's the area I'm most familiar with. I also have some more experience with history (pretty broadly), politics (mostly Anglo), and journalism.

791:

suggests that we have an astounding "37 policy pages with 377 sections, 44 guideline pages with 398 sections, and 71 essay pages with 201 sections, all linked by a total of 2,111 shorthand aliases"), and be very patient when they don't understand something even after the first time hearing it

4992:

Yeah, it’s not a good idea to be a sheep. Honestly, when I originally !voted, I was thinking about !voting Neutral, under a concern over the large increase in activity a few months before nomination. The only reason I voted Support was because the user had at least a good chunk of activity

434:

Thanks for your contributions to date. I noticed from Q1 that, as an admin, you intend to be involved in closing AfD disucssions. While you have had quite substantial experience in participating in AfD discussions, you do not seem to have closed a lot of AFD discussions. According to the

6198:

I haven't evaluated the candidate in any substantial way but unlike the premise of question 5 I think it's great Eddie hasn't closed AfDs. It can be easy as a NAC to lean towards viewing discussions from the lens of close options that they can implement rather than all options.

2511:

is worth reading. I was particularly impressed by "After the last one, I voluntarily relinquished my AfC right in September 2017, and began participating in AfD discussions until I felt I understood notability better and returned in September 2018." Thanks for standing for RFA.

934:, where a reasonable amount of in-universe detail was presented. However, one user had already redirected the article and been reverted, suggesting that this was a controversial redirection (the user who reverted the redirection even suggested taking the article to AFD) and per 4378:

I was going to make a diary entry to come and close this after the seven days, but given I had just been lamenting that we didn't yet have an admin from those who started editing in 2016 I thought I would review the candidate instead. Having done so I am happy to support.

828:. Thanks for the response, and you seem to have hit it right with the acknowledgements. Firstly, I am not sure if responses from folks like me to your answer in this section are allowed. Admins - if this is not allowed, please move this note elsewhere. Thanks in advance. 688:: Most of your edits are semi-automated edits which by an humourous essay called editcountitis has proved that back in history or present people don't support rfa when semi-automated is over non-automated. Is this supposed to be taken as a serious or minor case? view, 796:

applies here). It seems like very recently that I was a new user myself, and I really benefited from healthy doses of both good faith and patience on the part of users around me. I'd also very much recommend tools such as the visual editor and places like the

366:, and would not decline either of those drafts if I came across them today. I've learned that it's important to remember we are all here to improve the encyclopedia. Being polite and respectful facilitates cooperation, and cooperation is a beautiful thing. 1233:

strong and meritorious arguments, I would afford them due weight when closing— even if I didn't agree with the argument. Similarly, a vote of 4-1 is much different than 15-1 (though numerically, one side is still favored). In the latter case, (15-1), a

6497:#1, which reads: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous." Anyway lets focus on the candidate and leave discussion on NAC for another time. This is probably not the appropriate venue to do so. Cheers -- 1701:

which says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Also take for example Msosa's article above. There isn't a vast amount of content, but being the chief justice of a country, she is presumed to be notable per

1011:

and the argument being made was that basically none of the content was worth keeping and a redirect was merited. In the question above, I outline why I didn't feel the content was worth keeping as it stood. Hopefully this clarifies somewhat--

1696:

that are "alternative to the general notability guideline". So in a way SNGs are supposed to help out in areas where there is limited easily accessible information by providing guidance about what is likely to be notable. See policies like

5978:- Glad I noticed this RfA in time to jump on the bandwagon. Given the !votes and reasons already given now near the close, I see no reason to repeat them. I hope this will help push the total supports to more than 200 by the close. 3675:. Seen enough answers provided by the candidate for me to make up my mind. Sufficient knowledge in administrative areas (esp. AfD), solid content creation, good communication skills and satisfactory answers to my question. Overall 533:. Those keeping generally say that GNG is clearly met, so NPOL doesn't have to be. There are nuances, but that's the gist of it. There are, understandably, strong opinions on both sides of the discussion. You can find a discussion 231:

discussions, the administrative area where I have the most experience. I would also be willing to help out where needed, but wouldn't act as an administrator in an area without understanding the various nuances of the process

1469:

Not a CCS, because (while he was a runner in high school), that doesn't separate him from any other high school runner. I would do a search to confirm that he wasn't a spectacularly successful high school runner runner (like

4168: 257: 4350:. Great answers (especially Q16). Shows competency at AFD by questions and !votes, knows when they are incompetent and should not be doing something. Civil and a great content contributor. There is nothing to dislike. -- 1330:, but I feel I have sufficiently explained how I would approach a similar closing if I had to in my above answer. Here, I would have !voted if I felt there was a policy-supported side that wasn't being considered. Best, 3840:. I like your answers to the questions; you come across as an insightful person who will be a useful and sensible member of the admin corps rather than someone trying to answer some tricky questions in a "correct" way. 6221:

I find this interesting. I do think it is beneficial for AfD-focused candidates to have more NAC experience. However, given the hostility many of them get, I try not to view its (comparative) absence as a negative.

5425:- More admins are always welcome; particularly really good ones. I like the nominations and trust that those who edit alongside of you have good sense and if they trust you with a mop, why wouldn't I support it. :3 4627:

ask the candidate a question about this directly, before !voting, instead of casting vague aspersions here. Perhaps he can offer a reasonable explanation. In any case, that's exactly what the RfA questions are for.

1429:

Because speedy deletion usually only involves two editors, I would prefer to see a non-notable article taken to AFD for more input than to have a notable topic speedily deleted. To directly answer your question, a

1670:"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. 82:) – Recently, people have been slightly bemoaning the fact that most of our admins started editing Knowledge (XXG) years, if not decades, ago - so here's one from the class of (late) 2016. Having recently taken 612:, and that's really just a matter of where the random page button takes me. Hopefully this is what you're looking for, if not I'd be happy to go into more detail about my interests, focus, and expertise. Best, 872: 1450:

A7 would almost definitely apply because this is not a CCS, though it is demonstrably true. However, in this case A7 wouldn't apply if profiles of Eddie891 as a Knowledge (XXG) editor that were published in

6271:

While I would agree a lack of NAC experience is not fatal (or indeed a huge negative) to an adminship candidate (even one who stated they intend to focus on AfD closes as administrator), I certainly think

3679:

to the project and I am happy to support. My only suggestion to the candidate is to take it slowly as they start to be involved in closing AfDs; after all, the skills involved in contributing to AfDs as a

6318: 5256:

Ritchie's eyes are never untrustable in my opinion. All the best my man! Don't worry, just ignore the Karen being a little of a nuisance. I guess I shouldn't burn trash but this is here for the humour.

6314: 5131:

For a start, I trust both nominators. I also didn't notice this until today and I'm overwhelmed by the solid support this candidate has received. There's clearly no question about him being suitable.

5026:

That’s... actually quite a good approach. Don’t know why I never thought of doing it that way. When I notice an RfA open, I often try to !vote immediately. Of course, I do plenty of research first.

331:

was closed as unsuccessful in 2018, a user left a message on the article talk, suggesting various changes to the content and structure of the article. I essentially dismissed them, demonstrating

1676:, but those criteria still require the site to be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" that are independent. From a google search, I garner that Okezone is a gateway website to 382:

per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

375: 6424:. That said, you're of course not the first or only editor to ask Q5 in an RFA; the last RFA had two or three versions of the question asked, and that led (in part) to the discussion over at 6048:

for easily surpassing my criteria, the strength of the nominators, and the lack of anything brought up to oppose. Except for that weird thing - and that had nothing to do with the candidate.

5283:

per nomination statement, as well as based upon my general belief that any editor in good standing, with a history of not being a jackass, should be granted the tools as a matter of course.

4969:. My personal philosophy is that if the only reason I have to support something is that many others have supported it, it's better to not !vote, but I don't think that's the prevailing view. 1602: 5007:

Unless I'm already familiar with the candidate, I usually wait a few days to see if any serious issues are raised. If not, I generally arrive at the conclusion that there are no red flags.

3298:– having reviewed the candidate's responses here and clicked through to some of the links, I'm persuaded that they have the proper temperament and other qualities necessary for adminship. 2229:- I see no issues - civil and friendly, yet serious and extremely constructive in editing. Would be great admin, especially in the areas this candidate has said they intend to work in. 1251:

applied, I would tag the article myself. However, if it was a minor difference of opinion, I would be inclined to disregard what I thought in favor of what consensus is shaping up to be

756:: Firstly, thanks for your candidature. Looking forward to the process here. I have an explicit question on the actions that you would take to make some of the Wikiprocess (e.g. AfD) 2413:. I don't see why not. I've only had positive interactions with him; he is both a good content creator and a great GAN/FAC reviewer. He seems to have a good need for the tools, too. 534: 609: 1326:

That's a specific example of a discussion that I would have !voted in rather than closing. I could (and happily will if wanted) discuss theoretical outcomes, process, and options

276:

that don't get further than DYK but are fascinating topics all the same. Also, some of my contributions that worked towards countering systematic bias stand out to me, including

5367:- nominee appears to have solid experience and a mature approach to things, and his response to Q3 shows that he has taken the time to learn and grow from past errors/mistakes. 2250:- I've worked with this editor on multiple things related to military history over the last several months. Definitely has the temperament and compotenxe to make a good admin. 2184:

Oh hai. I've done two GAs with Eddie and he's always been a joy to work with. In fact, he's been poking me about finishing out that good topic for like a year now, and it is

358:), I voluntarily left the AFC project to learn more about notability standards, a move that I think was the right one. Since then, I've gotten a far better understanding of 840:

in all of your interactions as an Administrator. This is vital for new blood and to keep the community thriving. Keep that as a guide, a talisman perhaps. Good luck again.

90:, Eddie's now got a bit of time to think about asking for the admin tools. As well as the aforementioned FA, he has a good selection of featured content, including further 1672:

To me, this means that just because a website is popular doesn't mean it is necessarily notable. High-traffic websites are admittedly more likely to have coverage meeting

542: 504: 261: 6646: 6620: 2478:

I haven't interacted with Eddie891, yet, but, I'm pleased with what I see presented here and it would be great to have some new blood (hey, I'm one of those old admins

1664:

are both rated as 'stub' class articles, but are notable. Sourcing that clearly establishes the notability of the website you mention is expected— I'd recommend giving

910:: Generally, no. However, there are cases in which an AFD discussion is merited. You will note that even NOTCLEANUP says "However, some articles do reach the so-called 1043:

Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?

309:

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?

4479:

I don't believe we've interacted directly, but I'm impressed with content creation and promotion to GA/FA, and get a strong positive vibe from what I've read here. =

1874: 1988: 1463:

existed. This sourcing (if it existed) would indicate a CCS (not all editors get profiles like that). If it wasn't cited in the article, I would add the sources.

1983: 883:, that the AfD should end with delete unless the article is cleaned up. Do you think it is appropriate to nominate articles you think are notable at AfD? --- 6325:

or an unanimous decision; both had good faith suggestions to delete. And I note the closer has, not too surprisingly, got short shrift from one such editor.

2461:. A fine, fine Wikipedian, a solid content creator and an editor whom it is a pleasure to work with. I cannot imagine them not making an equally fine admin. 124:

the ability to take on board information. I think they have the right stuff for adminship, with no concerns over their temperament or civility. Best Wishes,

6571:

Disappointed that the candidate answered the obligatory "what does your username mean" question. It's not relevant to their abilities as an administrator.

4426:

Mostly as per the responses to the questions. I have not interacted with Eddie891 before (that I recall), but I see much good work and no reason to oppose.

2053: 1007:

that would be a very poor rationale for deletion. However, BEFORE #D specifically says "if the main concern is notability". This AFD was brought to propose

721:

work I've done. Refer to my answer to question 2 to see some highlights of the content that I have written. I'm prouder of the 269 edits I put into writing

705:: Hi Tbiw, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but I'll try and answer your question as best as I can. 1) I'm not convinced that most of my edits 327:. With that being said, as a new user I was involved in several situations where I wish I had handled myself better. For instance, shortly after an FAC for 157: 344:. Were I in the same situation today, I would remain calm and politely ask the deleting admin to restore the content. As a new user I also got involved in 1199:

How would you approach closing an AfD if you felt Knowledge (XXG) policy heavily supported one side, but the !vote appears to clearly favor the opposite?

6664: 214:

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

6467:

AFD that is like 5 keeps and 5 deletes can't be NAC'd. If all the votes are accorded equal weight (no consensus), it's clearly controversial and thus a

6463:

doesn't mean unanimous, either. What you're describing, like a "9 keep, 1 delete" situation, might be a SNOW keep and thus an appropriate NAC. However,

1844: 4445:- I have no concerns at all; candidate seems like a trustworthy editor. That they are a content builder who wants to work in the area of AfD is great. 4188:, just a great candidate, and it'll be nice to give the mop to someone who didn't arrive on Knowledge (XXG) back when dinosaurs still roamed the land. 1257:

does the timing look like? If a user who is in the minority has !voted and made a strong argument very close to this 'closing' time in a discussion, a

2692:

should be the cornerstone of all Admin actions. I request the candidate to showcase that trait in all of their interactions as an Admin, if voted so.

1418:

As you indicate an intention of dealing with pages tagged for CSD, what sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9

5885:

per my trust in Dweller and Ritchie (no disrespect to the other noms, just don't know you!) and a peruse through the questions and answers above.

2825:– Good content creator and someone I would trust to fairly evaluate consensus at AfD. I disagree with their viewpoint but that is immaterial. --- 2334:

Smart, has done good work on the project and gave excellent answers to the questions given. Will welcome him in as a net positive to the project.

1593:

Greetings, I'm afraid I'll add to all the AfD-related questions with another one: What is your view on AfD (or its "opposite", AfC) in regards to

657:. Though I understand the basic concept of both areas, I certainly couldn't jump into the processes without slowly getting more experience. Best, 1103:, where I could help answer questions along the lines of 'why did my page get deleted?'. Additionally, in the future I could see myself handling 6475:

controversial, and thus a bad nac. There are really only two kinds of discussions, right? SNOW and controversial. Is there anything in between?

4089:- I mainly recognize this candidate from AFD. Giving them the power to close AFD discussions as "delete" will be a net positive in my opinion. 3896:, excellent candidate. Thinks things through, is knowledgeable about process, but also willing to challenge and work to improve it. Net asset. 2320: 1649: 1440: 946: 4829:. Apart from solid contributions, I am especially convinced because they admitted and linked to past mistakes, which shows personal growth. -- 5287: 4171:

at Milhist ACR and FAC, teachable, temperament seems great, answer to Q11a is excellent (TNT is there for a reason), great content creation.

2832: 1926: 1831: 1765: 983: 890: 5743:. I'm not as familiar with this person, but there are people supporting whose opinions I really trust. The answers seem to be good as well. 4143:- although I am not familiar with this editor, reading his responses to the questions gives me a good impression that he'll do a great job. 3453:- My only slight concern is the lack of AFD participation however AFD isn't the be-all and end-all of WP, No red flags here, Easy support. – 538: 6096:- Great content work, sensible answers to questions and overall a good editor who will make proper use of the admin tools. A net positive. 2277: 1247:

about the policy? You say that I feel policy supports one side, but that could mean many different things. If I felt, for instance, that a

3658:, Good candidate, well rounded experience, level headed. Impressive answeres to the RfA questions, including to some off-the-wall ones. 2856:. Article building and experience in admin related areas. Civil and well spoken. Per nominator statements. Per various reasons above. -- 713:(only in the articlespace) which suggests that 3,741 or 37.2% of my (mainspace) edits are semi-automated. 2) I wouldn't say that I have 1868: 33: 17: 5790: 5714: 5270: 4338: 3423: 2885:

Admins should be content creators, and Eddie has done an amazing job at content! I've seen Eddie around and generally been impressed.

1978: 834:

Good luck with this process. If you are voted as an Administrator, my request to you based on your response to my question is to have

5244: 4228: 2174: 1661: 1648:

is an article that needs work to "provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject", that's all. Many of our articles (3,400,898 based on

725:

than the hundreds of typos I may have fixed (not to say that gnoming is unimportant, just that edit count can be misleading). Best,

396:

Please tell us about your account names. I suppose that Eddie is a personal name but are 891, 892 and 893 random numbers or what?

1838: 6523: 6333: 6291:...but at AFD, NACs can only close snow keeps and snow redirects. Anything else is either a bad nac or requires an admin's help. 3369: 2893: 2070: 292: 111: 780: 3989:

Decent answers to questions, demonstrating a healthy attitude towards the avoidance of relist bias and bad non-admin closures.

2098: 915: 525:

coverage about being in an election, it's not them being notable but the election itself, 2) If they lose, they don't pass the

328: 6257:

ride the admin are just editors with more buttons train; it just so happens that in this case the more buttons matters. Best,

6479: 6432: 6347: 6295: 4594: 4432: 3643: 2997: 2516: 1898: 1824: 1776: 1713: 1569: 1481: 1400: 1337: 1316: 1302: 1277: 1175: 1126: 1061: 1019: 956: 808: 732: 664: 619: 557: 479: 410: 197: 79: 6177: 4966: 5909:- not seeing a reason not to (except maybe the comment that math "doesn't make much sense to me", but I can forgive that). 1433:(CCS) indicates any amount of potential significance, broadly construed. This is intentionally a lower bar than notability. 5227: 4772: 4551:: no temperament concerns, plenty of experience and lots of reasons to trust Eddie891 to be responsible with the tools. — 3112: 3072:

A solid record suggesting both clue and good temperament with no obvious red or yellow flags. Looks like a winner to me. -

2775: 2508: 2352: 1610: 187: 183: 143: 1787:

Thank you very much for a quick response! That's pretty much what I figured but I thought I'd clarify anyway. Stay safe.

5665: 4655:

Alright, that makes sense, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to everybody. My activity hasn’t increased over lockdown.

4467: 2941: 2014: 2024: 649:

Well (assuming that by nontechnical you mean 'not coding and scripts and bots', because that would be my weakest area)

599:

Sure thing! While I don't have a particular 'formula' for finding articles, what I've generally done is scroll through

4386: 4074: 3598: 3527: 3365: 2923: 2740: 1270:

to close such a discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot be much more specific without more specifics to work from. Best,

459: 2530:

Excellent content creator who is a joy to collaborate with. I have no concerns about trusting him with the tools -

5549: 5372: 5317: 2637: 2314: 2094: 1266:

Again, I would vastly prefer to !vote in this scenario, but this would be how I generally approached closing if, I

4679:

RfA, and never once carried out an NAC or was even tempted to do one. Yet still the community granted me the mop.

1652:) are assessed as 'stub', and even more were stubs at one point. To pull out two examples I recently came across, 714: 6608: 6157: 5750: 5451: 5351: 4193: 3262: 2853: 2838: 2826: 2339: 1952: 1919: 1883: 989: 977: 896: 884: 587: 179: 6173: 1680:, so the best option may be to redirect there and add several sentences or a paragraph (of course following the 1609:(which I was completely uninvolved in) which was repeatedly denied despite covering the and being redlinked in 653:

is an area that I've never contributed in, and have no experience in. I also don't have very much experience in

6101: 4768: 4128: 3774: 3041: 2273: 6200: 3676: 1973: 1386: 710: 6313:

That's what I certainly remember being the case. However, just quickly checking a recent log, I spotted both

1624:

Caveat: I am relatively new to Knowledge (XXG), so I am not 100% sure this qualifies as a valid RfA question.

1381:

important in allowing a project as large as Knowledge (XXG) to continue to function. I appreciate works like

922:

as a summary-only description, with no sourced analysis. Anything that might have ventured into analysis was

348:

reviewing without having a great understanding of notability. After making two particularly bad declines (of

6119: 5661: 5153: 4751:, I am not familiar with the candidate's work but their replies suggest competence and good attitude. · · · 4463: 4279: 3994: 3828: 3726: 3352: 3242: 2937: 2869: 2398: 2147: 1657: 1327: 3172:, but based on their answer to questions I'll trust they will not use adminship to enforce their opinions. 2911: 1968: 880: 451: 6562: 6067: 5966: 5786: 5711: 5505: 5389: 5284: 5264: 4381: 4334: 4176: 3709: 3523: 3334: 2667:

Lots of good contributions, thoughtful and polite participation in deletion discussions and no red flags.

2466: 2432: 2202: 1998: 341: 337: 5189:

Looks good. I particularly liked the responses to Q's 11, 12, and 16 which point to a thoughtful person.

4403:- Another terrific choice to wield the mop. I've no doubt that the candidate will not break the project. 2547: 1160:: Well, I cannot exactly remember how I happened upon it, but I think it came from reading an article in 6321:. While neither would leap out as being unusual for a standard admin close, equally neither was a clear 6227: 6130:- A newer-experience admin would be a bit of balance and I feel that's a thing we need. Full support. ~ 6017: 5949: 5471: 5368: 5240: 5199: 5137: 5057: 5015: 4938: 4905: 4896: 4834: 4755: 4516: 4233: 3866: 3810: 3744: 3077: 2792: 2632: 2308: 2171: 1993: 1730: 1677: 1632: 512: 466: 355: 281: 6645:

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

6512: 6425: 3009:

Good temperament (most important for an admin; the rest can be learned) and good answers to questions.

1894: 1706:. Where an SNG doesn't apply, we cannot assume that coverage exists without it being presented. Best, 545:.I actually think that the current set-up works decently. While I weakly feel that 'candidates need a 6604: 6590: 6521: 6331: 6153: 5744: 5426: 5348: 4952: 4913: 4813: 4609: 4450: 4369: 4296: 4189: 4048: 3931: 3845: 3615: 3577: 3404: 3257: 3019: 2787:- I'm satisfied that the editor is both not a jerk and has a clue, including in their specific area. 2594: 2418: 2335: 2068: 1947: 1912: 1755: 941: 931: 863: 583: 573: 388: 285: 109: 6633: 6612: 6594: 6580: 6566: 6525: 6506: 6485: 6455: 6438: 6404: 6353: 6335: 6301: 6286: 6266: 6251: 6231: 6212: 6181: 6161: 6141: 6122: 6105: 6088: 6071: 6057: 6040: 6021: 6004: 5987: 5970: 5953: 5936: 5918: 5901: 5876: 5866: 5848: 5827: 5815: 5794: 5775: 5757: 5735: 5718: 5686: 5669: 5652: 5627: 5610: 5593: 5576: 5556: 5527: 5509: 5492: 5475: 5458: 5417: 5393: 5376: 5356: 5338: 5321: 5275: 5248: 5218: 5204: 5181: 5157: 5140: 5123: 5106: 5092: 5080: 5063: 5035: 5021: 5002: 4987: 4956: 4942: 4917: 4900: 4883: 4868: 4852: 4838: 4821: 4805: 4793: 4776: 4758: 4743: 4722: 4708: 4692: 4664: 4650: 4636: 4621: 4600: 4564: 4543: 4526: 4503: 4486: 4471: 4454: 4437: 4418: 4395: 4373: 4356: 4342: 4321: 4300: 4283: 4266: 4249: 4238: 4214: 4197: 4180: 4159: 4135: 4113: 4099: 4081: 4052: 4035: 4014: 3998: 3981: 3961: 3945: 3936: 3918: 3902: 3888: 3870: 3849: 3832: 3815: 3796: 3779: 3760: 3748: 3731: 3712: 3697: 3667: 3650: 3619: 3602: 3582: 3565: 3548: 3531: 3514: 3500: 3483: 3466: 3445: 3428: 3408: 3391: 3373: 3356: 3339: 3316: 3290: 3267: 3248: 3230: 3213: 3196: 3180: 3156: 3132: 3115: 3095: 3081: 3064: 3045: 3028: 3001: 2978: 2962: 2945: 2927: 2896: 2877: 2844: 2817: 2796: 2779: 2745: 2718: 2701: 2678: 2659: 2642: 2623: 2600: 2577: 2559: 2539: 2522: 2499: 2470: 2453: 2436: 2422: 2405: 2383: 2366: 2343: 2326: 2299: 2281: 2259: 2242: 2221: 2204: 2179: 2150: 2131: 2119: 2102: 2089: 2072: 2057: 1796: 1782: 1734: 1719: 1698: 1673: 1636: 1575: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1515: 1487: 1406: 1390: 1343: 1321: 1283: 1181: 1132: 1067: 1025: 995: 962: 919: 902: 849: 814: 771: 738: 697: 670: 625: 591: 563: 516: 485: 416: 203: 161: 132: 113: 58: 6603:

Is there an issue with the vote counter? Showing 1 Neutral comment, however none have been posted.

6585:

Why? It is always nice to see an admin listen to and respond to the community. More should try it.

6262: 6208: 6097: 5076: 5031: 4998: 4802: 4685: 4660: 4617: 4499: 4122: 3977: 3769: 3561: 3091: 3037: 2973: 2958: 2711: 2555: 2269: 2128: 2115: 2085: 1606: 284:. Similarly, I am proud of several contributions to existing articles, for instance the de-stub of 6494: 6468: 6421: 1689: 1258: 1237:

close would probably be apt, whether or not I personally agreed with the arguments being advanced.

1092: 1004: 973: 935: 446: 6482: 6435: 6350: 6298: 6115: 6084: 6035: 5983: 5771: 5682: 5606: 5589: 5488: 5149: 5119: 4789: 4718: 4586: 4539: 4483: 4430: 4275: 3990: 3824: 3721: 3637: 3496: 3348: 3237: 2991: 2858: 2655: 2519: 2495: 2393: 2255: 2217: 2140: 1818: 1314: 1300: 1165: 1154:

on Knowledge (XXG), how did you accomplish that, and what would you propose to ease my jealousy?

1077: 73: 1523: 1229: 784: 605: 530: 454:.In response to the second part: that's a bit more complicated. As is outlined on pages such as 3086:

Seems like a chap who has his head on straight. I look forward to seeing him around AfD. Best,

2608:- A lot of participation at AfD and no issues with the !votes there. Good content creation too 2231: 6558: 6064: 5962: 5914: 5864: 5782: 5731: 5726:. Glad to trust a quality content creator. Seems to possess clue. Won't delete the mainpage. 5704: 5698: 5523: 5501: 5385: 5334: 5258: 4410: 4330: 4291:

Competent, insightful, and helpful. A great candidate, and very likely to be a great admin. --

4262: 4246: 4210: 4172: 4031: 4007: 3912: 3861:

for writing superb Knowledge (XXG) articles, my gut tells me Eddie891 will be a good admin. -

3706: 3544: 3510: 3418: 3326: 3226: 3128: 3108: 3054: 2954: 2813: 2771: 2535: 2462: 2428: 2189: 2047: 269: 151: 126: 6471:. If it's either a keep or a delete because some votes receive more weight than others, it's 6460: 6322: 3169: 1703: 1681: 1665: 1645: 1598: 1531: 1234: 1221: 1116: 1104: 1008: 927: 793: 654: 600: 526: 363: 324: 170:

I gratefully accept. I have never edited for pay and my (seldom used) alternate accounts are

6576: 6223: 6136: 6053: 6013: 5945: 5928: 5811: 5483:. Has a clue, solid contributor, unlikely to break the site through ineptitude or malice. - 5467: 5231: 5194: 5132: 5102: 5089: 5050: 5008: 4934: 4892: 4850: 4830: 4752: 4736: 4557: 4511: 4223: 4153: 4097: 3862: 3806: 3740: 3441: 3325:

and ShortDescriptionHelper here, this is not a Huggleoholic. Thanks for all your good work.

3281: 3151: 3073: 2788: 2570: 2379: 2235: 2166: 1726: 1628: 1585: 1142: 508: 495: 273: 190:(later blocked for harassment) was opened. I have no connection to that account whatsoever. 2160: 1693: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1527: 1430: 1419: 1382: 1248: 1225: 1217: 1112: 1108: 1100: 1096: 911: 798: 650: 455: 345: 332: 320: 316: 228: 99: 95: 6586: 6516: 6502: 6451: 6416:

How can a non-controversial discussion end in no consensus? My understanding is that NACs

6400: 6340: 6326: 6282: 6247: 6000: 5894: 5412: 4948: 4924: 4909: 4646: 4632: 4446: 4365: 4292: 4109: 4068: 4044: 3926: 3841: 3792: 3693: 3663: 3611: 3594: 3571: 3400: 3208: 3010: 2919: 2905: 2886: 2805: 2736: 2586: 2414: 2063: 1792: 1653: 1035: 104: 5694:

Great contributor, well-versed in the admin areas they want to work in, I see no issues.

2908:, you're batting 100 my WikiFriend - keep bringing us these excellent admin candidates!! 1547: 1368: 1051: 923: 436: 249: 91: 87: 3164:

Good editor with good articles and good participation in AfD. Seems to be a deletionist

1558:, and unrelenting bullies fall in that category. In most cases, I would tell a bully to 918:, with two sources, both to 1984 itself (no secondary sources). This basically violates 6420:

weigh votes because if a close requires weighing votes, it's controversial, and thus a

6258: 6242:. NAC should be used sparingly and for self-evident and uncontroversial closes only. - 6204: 5844: 5824: 5647: 5541: 5311: 5213: 5072: 5027: 4994: 4680: 4656: 4613: 4495: 3967: 3557: 3508:— Well, because 0 red flags can be observed & generally, they are mentally mature. 3454: 3087: 2970: 2697: 2551: 2448: 2362: 2294: 2265: 2125: 2111: 2081: 1511: 1091:

In addition to AfD, I would be willing to work in areas related to the main page (like

845: 767: 693: 54: 6557:

all at AfD, and they tend to promote inappropriate relisting more than anything else.

5165:- looks good. Lots of low-drama varied contributions and sensible question answers. ~ 1686:

general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline

1685: 1594: 359: 6658: 6629: 6490: 6476: 6443: 6429: 6358: 6344: 6308: 6292: 6080: 6030: 5979: 5836: 5767: 5678: 5643: 5623: 5602: 5585: 5484: 5115: 4861: 4785: 4714: 4573: 4535: 4480: 4427: 4317: 3942: 3879: 3628: 3492: 3479: 3175: 3036:- Experience demonstrated at the featured article is enough, and I see no red flags. 2987: 2671: 2651: 2513: 2491: 2251: 2213: 1814: 1770: 1707: 1563: 1475: 1474:) and if he was would source that in the article. Otherwise, A7 applies here. Best, 1471: 1422:? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim? 1394: 1357: 1331: 1311: 1297: 1296:

had in mind, but it is a recent AfD close that seems to petty well fit the question.

1271: 1169: 1120: 1099:), given that most of my experience is related to content. I also might be active at 1055: 1013: 950: 831: 823: 802: 726: 658: 613: 551: 473: 404: 350: 277: 191: 175: 171: 69: 5635:. Exemplary candidate, as far as I can tell. No red flags, nice person, make it so. 5910: 5857: 5727: 5519: 5330: 4880: 4405: 4351: 4258: 4243: 4206: 4027: 3955: 3897: 3540: 3382: 3222: 3124: 3104: 2809: 2755: 2616: 2567:

Steller content record and some evidence of early admin work. Good enough for me.

2531: 2043: 1308: 1293: 1191: 1085:

Besides AfD, what are the areas of adminship that you would be willing to work in?

635: 147: 6152:

Lengthy disquisition and diversion can be found in history, at time of this edit.

5191:

Wasn't planning on !voting but I figured this nom needs all the help it can get :)

2019: 5835:. He has the experience needed and intelligence of handling that right. Go ahead 6572: 6131: 6049: 5807: 5569: 5098: 4847: 4731: 4552: 4145: 4090: 3437: 3276: 3142: 2487: 2375: 2230: 722: 253: 83: 6203:

gets at some of it. I see it all too frequently in my time closing AfDs. Best,

2444:

Looks good to me. No problem areas I can identify and the questions are point.

6498: 6447: 6411: 6396: 6278: 6243: 5996: 5888: 5806:. Seems like they merit having the tools for the areas they want to work in. 5402: 5166: 4642: 4628: 4105: 4062: 3788: 3757: 3689: 3659: 3589: 3205: 3189: 2915: 2727: 1788: 1746: 1550:

that allow the project to remain open and collaborative. Some people are just

426: 296: 289: 98:, which you can see on his user page. He has participated in a good number of 6639:

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

3857:. It's my first vote in an administrator election, but based on the editor's 3168:(actually, I agree with your position on most delete votes) when it comes to 788: 5840: 5535: 5305: 5297: 4975: 4702: 3381:

Good contibutions and don't see any particular reason to think otherwise. -

3304: 2693: 2445: 2357: 2289: 1507: 1497: 841: 763: 748: 689: 680: 643:

What nontechnical areas of the English Knowledge (XXG) are you the weakest?

4572:

No concerns really but I'd like to see some counter vandalism experience.

4534:

Very level-headed answers, which suggest to me considerable competence. —

2709:- Seems sensible and WP:HERE, and haven't seen a reason not to support. — 1668:

a read-through if you haven't yet, particularly the sub-section that says

6625: 5637: 5619: 4309: 3475: 2110:

I trust the candidate. Honest, listens to feedback, writes good content.

1261:

could be apt to provide time for other users to analyse the new argument.

4169:

History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army

3539:

This is a great candidate who has contributed much to the encyclopedia.

2753:- Three co-nominations and his name is Eddie. What more could one want? 2686:

Per my question in the questions section, and the candidate's response.

258:

History of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Army

248:

Of my content creation, I'm most proud of my four featured content, two

2609: 1754:

Could you comment on the fairly steep increase in your activity level

879:". Your withdrawal statement seems to indicate that you disagree with 6649:

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

5384:- Really liked the answers, seems really friendly and a good editor. 1448:

Eddie891 is one of the 39,695,595 registered users on Knowledge (XXG)

945:,. After my nomination, SN completely rewrote the article (they have 4610:

the enormous increase in activity a few shy months before nomination

976:#D3 and how it may or may not apply to the above mentioned AfD? --- 6319:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/J. D. Slater (2nd nomination)

3756:. Seems qualified. See no reason to think he will abuse the tools. 1897:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 582:

explain how you patrol this patch and select topics for attention.

6315:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Princess Mafalda of Bulgaria

1904: 1725:

know them well yourself. Good luck with your admin application. --

6511:

I'd suggest continuing the (rather fruitful, IMHO) discussion on

4257:

Competent answers to the questions so far. He should do well. --

4167:, have seen Eddie891 around, I personally reviewed the excellent 2486:), too. I also thought "Fabian Ware" was a type of pottery (i.e. 949:) and I was happy to withdraw as my issues were addressed. Best, 6238: 5995:

No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--

3188:

An extremely qualified wikipedian who would be a great admin!

1908: 142:

If I may, I'll chip in, and recommend prospective !voters read

3684:

is different from those involved in evaluating consensus when

242:

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

3804:. I cannot find anything of concern, and see plenty to like. 168:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

3055: 1621:

that only suffices for a stub. What is your stance on this?

709:

semi-automated. The only tool I see to count such things is

3103:

has demonstrated competency in a number of useful areas. –

1601:. I've found several conflicting essays on this, including 315:

I have been in assorted disagreements, but I try to always

103:

administrator, so I'm delighted to put him forward as one.

1562:. Serious cases could result in an immediate block. Best, 1758:? (This point was brought up by one of the RfA !voters.) 926:

which is specifically disallowed by policy. I would have

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

221:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

6168: 3858: 1862: 1856: 1850: 1289: 1151: 5500:, Impressive history of editing with a good attitude. 2808:

believes he is a good candidate, that's enough for me.

2163:

limits the kinds of closures non-admins can perform).

1216:

did they say? If the !vote you speak of is made up of

608:, looking for older ones that aren't notable, such as 2374:

No reason to think this user would abuse the tools --

2080:- do not currently see any issues. Not a nominator.-- 1644:

Hello. Stub status has no bearing upon notability. A

4462:

Good answers. I am very happy to add my support. --

2007: 1961: 1940: 450:relisting a discussion could be a poor choice, see 3364:Has been around since Dec 2016 clear net positive. 445:So to answer the first part of your question: per 4006:- I see no issues for a reason to not to support. 1769:the things I enjoy being part of the most. Best, 1613:, I am wondering where the line is drawn between 374:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 5534: 4523:(I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 1292:as an example. I'm not sure if that is the one 319:and feel that it is very important to maintain 4891:. Who can argue with this level of unanimity? 2953:- Surprisingly good answers to the questions. 2650:I have no reason to say otherwise, good luck. 3474:because I can't see anything to worry about. 1920: 1881:Edit summary usage for Eddie891 can be found 759:less caustic, and more friendly to new comers 8: 340:on the talk of the CSD nominator, which was 2479: 1764:Well, right around half-way through March, 1552:not compatible with a collaborative project 53:Final: (200/0/0) - Closed as successful by 5148:Let's carry this over the finishing line. 2909: 2355:. Look forward to welcoming you on board. 1927: 1913: 1905: 877:I actually think this topic may be notable 3910:- belated support as co-nom Best Wishes, 1688:to be notable, and that means presenting 1546:, should not be tolerated. We have basic 1228:, their votes should be disregarded. See 295:(with other editors) right before it got 3768:Definitely qualified. No problems here. 1893:Please keep discussion constructive and 972:: Can you explain your understanding of 932:Nineteen Eighty-Four#Political geography 871:: Thank you for facing the gauntlet. In 5766:. I don't see any problems, good luck. 1692:in virtually all cases, though we have 1526:, be it general intimidation, threats, 531:only be notable for one event (running) 2391:will be a net-positive to the project. 1669: 1466: 1447: 1441:United States House of Representatives 1438: 1150:After looking at the extensiveness of 876: 543:largest recent one here (no consensus) 227:I intend to be most active in closing 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 5049:there don't seem to be any concerns. 4933:have my tongue slightly in cheek ... 4608:- I'm a bit suspicious in regards to 7: 2490:) until I clicked on it..hehehe.... 2188:that we haven't gotten it done yet. 1467:Eddie891 was a runner in high school 4641:See the candidate's answer to Q21. 2353:User talk:Eddie891/Archive 14#Hello 5466:, Thank you for stepping forward! 5346:- looks good to me. All the best: 4801:per comments above. No questions. 4612:, but otherwise a good candidate. 3556:Trust in his ability, no concern. 2936:- per me. and the qualifications. 24: 6665:Successful requests for adminship 4713:Good edits, awesome contributor. 4205:. We need more admins like this. 4043:Can be trusted with the tools. -- 3491:. Hard-working and level-headed. 3204:Would be more helpful as an admin 2967:No red flags, clear net positive 1766:New York State started closing up 1662:Nebraska House of Representatives 336:Knowledge (XXG) article), I left 6029:Just hopping on the bandwagon. 5944:- There is no point disagreeing. 4222:- definitely make a good admin. 4026:good response to my question :) 2480: 601:today's listing of AFD articles 329:Presidency of George Washington 188:Eddie891isthesmartestpersonever 5226:. Creates good content, meets 4274:after review. No issues here. 1605:. Having recently come across 1431:credible claim of significance 1: 5584:- looks to be a good choice. 3739:. Fully qualified candidate. 2164: 1619:limited available information 4965:I do sometimes wonder about 4947:Alas, undetectable in text. 1439:Eddie891 is a member of the 1307:17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1113:sock-puppetry investigations 655:requests for page protection 6634:22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6613:14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6595:04:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6581:07:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 6567:04:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 6526:17:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6507:17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6486:17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6456:17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6439:17:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6405:17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6354:16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6336:16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6302:16:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6287:12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6267:12:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6252:18:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6232:12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6213:12:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 6182:21:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 6162:21:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 6142:11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6123:11:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6106:10:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6089:09:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6072:08:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6058:05:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6041:05:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6022:05:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6005:03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 5988:00:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 5971:00:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 5954:00:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 5937:22:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5919:20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5902:14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5877:13:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5867:11:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5849:11:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5828:09:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5816:07:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5795:14:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5776:06:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5758:04:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5736:02:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5719:01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5687:00:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5670:00:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5660:- Good answers, no concerns 5653:22:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5628:19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5611:17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5601:— Solid content creation.-- 5594:15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5577:14:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5557:21:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5528:13:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5510:12:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5493:10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5476:06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5459:00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5418:00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 5394:22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5377:22:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5357:18:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5339:18:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5322:18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5288:18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5276:16:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5249:14:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5219:14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5205:13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5182:12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5158:10:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5141:09:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5124:08:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5107:08:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5093:05:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5081:03:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5064:00:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5036:11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 5022:13:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 5003:11:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4988:10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4957:07:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4943:06:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4918:04:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4901:20:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4884:20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4876:. No concerns, has a clue. 4869:18:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4853:18:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4839:12:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4822:12:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4806:11:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4794:09:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4777:07:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4759:06:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4744:03:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4723:03:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4709:02:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4693:02:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 4665:08:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 4651:14:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4637:12:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4622:23:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4601:23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4565:23:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4544:22:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4527:22:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4504:22:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4487:20:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4472:18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4455:18:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4438:18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4419:18:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4396:18:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4374:17:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4357:17:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4343:17:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4322:14:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4301:13:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4284:13:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4267:13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4250:10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4239:10:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4215:09:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4198:09:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4181:08:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4160:05:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4136:05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4114:04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4100:04:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4082:02:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4053:01:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4036:01:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 4015:01:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 3999:00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 3982:00:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 3962:23:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3946:22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3937:21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3919:21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3903:21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3889:19:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3871:19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3850:18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3833:18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3816:17:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3797:16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3780:16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3761:16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3749:16:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3732:16:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3713:16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3698:16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3668:16:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3651:16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3620:15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3603:15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3583:15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3566:14:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3549:14:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3532:14:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3515:14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3501:14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3484:13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3467:13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3446:13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3429:11:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3409:10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3392:10:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3374:09:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3357:08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3340:08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3317:08:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3291:08:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3268:07:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3249:05:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3231:04:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3214:04:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3197:04:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3181:04:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3157:04:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3133:03:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3116:03:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3096:02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3082:02:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3065:02:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3046:02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3029:02:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 3002:01:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 2979:01:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 2963:01:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 2946:00:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 2928:22:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2897:22:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2878:21:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2845:21:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2818:21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2797:21:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2780:21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2746:21:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2719:20:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2702:20:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2679:20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2660:19:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2643:18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2624:18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2601:18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2578:17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2560:17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2540:17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2523:16:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2500:16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2471:16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2454:15:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2437:15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2423:15:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2406:15:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2384:14:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2367:14:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2344:14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2327:14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2300:13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2282:13:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2260:13:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2243:13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2222:13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2205:13:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2180:12:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2151:12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2139:Has a clue. All the best. — 2132:12:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2120:12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2103:12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2090:11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2073:11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2058:09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 1797:13:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1783:13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1735:07:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1720:00:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 1637:20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1576:14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1516:09:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1488:01:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1407:01:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1344:18:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1322:17:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1284:23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1182:23:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1133:11:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1068:21:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 1026:21:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 996:20:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 963:20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 903:18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 850:20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 815:19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 772:17:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 739:17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 698:17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 671:17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 626:14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 592:13:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 564:13:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 517:12:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 486:12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 417:11:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 210:Questions for the candidate 204:23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 162:09:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 133:07:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 114:16:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 59:11:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 6681: 5518:Looks qualified to me. -- 3720:Looks like a great admin! 2986:likely to be net positive 1356:Additional questions from 1152:your first article created 930:redirected the article to 503:There are a number of AfD 6428:about questions at RFAs. 5114:Yes. I like his answers. 4596:stand clear of the doors! 3123:No concerns. No flags. -- 2509:discussion Dweller linked 1745:Additional question from 1584:Additional question from 1496:Additional question from 1190:Additional question from 1141:Additional question from 1076:Additional question from 1054:for review. Best wishes, 1034:Additional question from 862:Additional question from 747:Additional question from 679:Additional question from 634:Additional question from 572:Additional question from 494:Additional question from 425:Additional question from 387:Additional question from 288:and being able to expand 96:Did you know? nominations 6642:Please do not modify it. 5961:- Impressive candidate. 5533:Struck multiple vote. -- 3436:No concerns, netpos. -- 2427:Not a jerk. Has a clue. 1328:until the cows come home 1249:speedy-deletion criteria 1115:or at noticeboards like 717:and urge you to look at 180:User:Eddie891's creature 6174:Emir of Knowledge (XXG) 6172:for ease of viewing. -- 5295:- likely net positive. 4700:- No concerns here. -- 4121:— certainly, why not?-- 2351:per nom and answers at 2307:: Excellent candidate. 1658:Chief Justice of Malawi 1457:The Wall Street Journal 1377:I feel that process is 1218:single purpose accounts 606:patrolling random pages 88:featured article status 38:Please do not modify it 5781:Struck double-vote. —‍ 5748:(formerly Tokyogirl79) 4308:. Good contributions. 3610:- trustworthy editor. 3366:Pharaoh of the Wizards 2689:Empathy and Good Faith 2638:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 1611:the corresponding list 837:Empathy and Good Faith 781:WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI 610:this article from 2008 266:and a featured picture 186:into my relation with 5677:. I like what I see. 5618:- Quality candidate. 4906:Argumentum ad populum 4513:- Mark D Worthen PsyD 2095:ProcrastinatingReader 1682:core content policies 1678:Media Nusantara Citra 1560:shape up or ship out 1367:What is your view of 356:Complex random vector 338:a rather curt message 282:Mary Margaret Francis 229:Articles for deletion 100:Articles for deletion 34:request for adminship 6619:Discussion moved to 4967:WP:Follow the leader 4846:– No reason not to. 3235:Best of luck Eddie! 2020:Global contributions 1812:Links for Eddie891: 1369:Process is important 942:Nineteen Eighty-Four 293:pretty substantially 286:Black Guard (Brazil) 6128:Support - I'm happy 5329:, based on review. 4810:No problems here. ~ 4769:Boing! said Zebedee 4767:per everyone else. 4177:click to talk to me 3688:AfDs. Good luck! -- 2507:- no concerns. The 1974:Non-automated edits 1666:the relevant policy 1461:National Geographic 1288:Followup: Consider 1206:particular order): 873:this AfD nomination 462:and templates like 6236:I 100% agree with 5662:Paradise Chronicle 4730:per co-nominator. 4464:Crystallizedcarbon 4060:- good candidate. 3627:looks good to me. 3417:No reason not to. 3399:will be an asset. 3275:- No issues here. 2938:Clone commando sev 2239: 1953:Edit summary usage 1901:before commenting. 1607:this article draft 1453:The New York Times 1226:arguments to avoid 875:, you begin with " 437:AfD closes counter 360:what notability is 39: 5900: 5749: 5717: 5651: 5401:– no concerns. – 5360: 5304: 5285:Hallward's Ghost 5274: 5203: 5192: 5060: 5054: 5018: 5012: 4985: 4973: 4525: 4524: 4434:DESiegel Contribs 4414: 4319: 3649: 3524:TheBirdsShedTears 3314: 3302: 2930: 2914:comment added by 2641: 2451: 2401: 2237: 2186:entirely my fault 2056: 2033: 2032: 1899:his contributions 1781: 1718: 1626: 1574: 1544:intense ownership 1486: 1405: 1342: 1318:DESiegel Contribs 1304:DESiegel Contribs 1282: 1224:, using textbook 1180: 1162:The Post Standard 1131: 1066: 1024: 961: 924:original research 912:TNT tipping point 813: 737: 669: 624: 562: 484: 460:WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS 415: 317:assume good faith 297:millions of views 270:George R. Proctor 250:featured articles 202: 160: 37: 6672: 6644: 6415: 6312: 6241: 6193:General comments 6171: 6139: 6134: 6118: 6113:per Hawkeye7 — 6038: 6033: 5899: 5897: 5886: 5862: 5856:. Warm Regards, 5754: 5747: 5710: 5707: 5701: 5641: 5574: 5555: 5552: 5548: 5544: 5538: 5456: 5450: 5447: 5444: 5441: 5438: 5435: 5431: 5415: 5410: 5369:Alanna the Brave 5355: 5302: 5268: 5261: 5237: 5234: 5197: 5190: 5179: 5135: 5058: 5052: 5016: 5010: 4986: 4983: 4982: 4980: 4971: 4928: 4865: 4816: 4742: 4739: 4705: 4690: 4688:Let's discuss it 4591: 4583: 4578: 4560: 4522: 4521: 4519: 4514: 4417: 4415: 4412: 4393: 4389: 4384: 4354: 4318: 4316: 4236: 4231: 4226: 4158: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4133: 4125: 4095: 4080: 4012: 3974: 3958: 3934: 3929: 3915: 3900: 3886: 3814: 3777: 3772: 3729: 3724: 3646: 3640: 3635: 3633: 3580: 3574: 3522:– all the best. 3464: 3459: 3426: 3389: 3332: 3329: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3309: 3300: 3288: 3279: 3265: 3260: 3256:- Net positive. 3245: 3240: 3166:(why not merge?) 3149: 3062: 3061: 3058: 3024: 3015: 2977: 2891: 2873: 2867: 2864: 2861: 2852:More than meets 2841: 2835: 2829: 2767: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2732: 2716: 2714: 2635: 2633:The Rambling Man 2621: 2614: 2591: 2575: 2573: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2449: 2404: 2399: 2396: 2310:Rubbish computer 2297: 2292: 2240: 2233: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2178: 2155:I'm inclined to 2144: 2051: 1969:Articles created 1929: 1922: 1915: 1906: 1886: 1878: 1837: 1773: 1756:since March 2020 1710: 1622: 1566: 1536:personal attacks 1532:biting newcomers 1478: 1397: 1334: 1274: 1212:has !voted, and 1172: 1123: 1107:and potentially 1058: 1016: 992: 986: 980: 953: 899: 893: 887: 827: 805: 729: 661: 616: 554: 476: 471: 465: 407: 383: 342:quickly reverted 325:keep a cool head 274:Peregrine Pollen 194: 155: 129: 6680: 6679: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6655: 6654: 6653: 6647:this nomination 6640: 6605:RickinBaltimore 6409: 6306: 6237: 6195: 6190: 6167: 6154:Alanscottwalker 6150: 6137: 6132: 6114: 6036: 6031: 5895: 5887: 5858: 5752: 5745:ReaderofthePack 5705: 5699: 5570: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5536: 5452: 5448: 5445: 5442: 5439: 5436: 5433: 5427: 5413: 5403: 5259: 5235: 5232: 5167: 5133: 4976: 4974: 4970: 4922: 4863: 4860:No concerns. - 4814: 4753:Peter Southwood 4737: 4734: 4703: 4686: 4587: 4579: 4574: 4558: 4517: 4512: 4435: 4411: 4404: 4391: 4387: 4382: 4364:– No concerns. 4352: 4314: 4234: 4229: 4224: 4190:Devonian Wombat 4154: 4150: 4146: 4144: 4129: 4123: 4091: 4061: 4008: 3968: 3956: 3932: 3927: 3913: 3898: 3885: 3880: 3859:early-on talent 3805: 3787:Get the mop. -- 3775: 3770: 3728:how are things? 3727: 3722: 3705:- no concerns. 3644: 3638: 3629: 3578: 3572: 3460: 3455: 3424: 3383: 3337: 3330: 3327: 3305: 3303: 3299: 3282: 3277: 3263: 3259:Nova Crystallis 3258: 3243: 3238: 3211: 3143: 3059: 3056: 3022: 3013: 2968: 2887: 2871: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2840:Coffeeandcrumbs 2839: 2833: 2827: 2806:User:Ritchie333 2765: 2762: 2759: 2756: 2744: 2728: 2712: 2710: 2670: 2617: 2610: 2587: 2571: 2569: 2481: 2450:◊distænt write◊ 2395:« Gonzo fan2007 2394: 2392: 2336:RickinBaltimore 2295: 2290: 2268:; no issues. – 2258: 2236: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2142: 2039: 2034: 2029: 2003: 1957: 1936: 1935:RfA/RfB toolbox 1933: 1882: 1830: 1813: 1809: 1779: 1716: 1654:Anastasia Msosa 1572: 1484: 1420:speedy deletion 1403: 1340: 1319: 1305: 1280: 1178: 1166:on my talk page 1129: 1064: 1022: 991:Coffeeandcrumbs 990: 984: 978: 959: 916:very poor state 898:Coffeeandcrumbs 897: 891: 885: 864:Coffeeandcrumbs 821: 811: 735: 667: 622: 560: 505:common outcomes 482: 469: 463: 413: 373: 262:a featured list 212: 200: 140: 127: 121: 67: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6678: 6676: 6668: 6667: 6657: 6656: 6652: 6651: 6636: 6601: 6600: 6599: 6598: 6597: 6569: 6553: 6552: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6548: 6547: 6546: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6542: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6531: 6530: 6529: 6528: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6364: 6363: 6362: 6234: 6216: 6215: 6201:WP:Relist bias 6194: 6191: 6189: 6186: 6185: 6184: 6149: 6146: 6145: 6144: 6125: 6108: 6098:TheGeneralUser 6091: 6079:per nom(s) ;) 6074: 6060: 6043: 6024: 6007: 5990: 5973: 5956: 5939: 5921: 5904: 5879: 5869: 5851: 5830: 5818: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5738: 5721: 5689: 5672: 5655: 5630: 5613: 5596: 5579: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5495: 5478: 5461: 5420: 5396: 5379: 5362: 5361: 5341: 5324: 5290: 5278: 5251: 5221: 5207: 5184: 5160: 5143: 5126: 5109: 5095: 5090:UserNameEatcha 5088:No concerns -- 5083: 5071:good editor -- 5066: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5005: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4886: 4871: 4855: 4841: 4824: 4808: 4803:ThesenatorO5-2 4796: 4779: 4761: 4746: 4725: 4711: 4695: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4603: 4567: 4546: 4529: 4506: 4489: 4474: 4457: 4440: 4433: 4421: 4398: 4376: 4359: 4345: 4324: 4303: 4286: 4269: 4252: 4241: 4217: 4200: 4183: 4162: 4138: 4124:Literaturegeek 4116: 4102: 4084: 4055: 4038: 4017: 4001: 3984: 3964: 3953:Has my trust. 3948: 3939: 3921: 3905: 3891: 3881: 3873: 3852: 3835: 3818: 3799: 3782: 3771:Eternal Shadow 3763: 3751: 3734: 3715: 3700: 3677:a net positive 3670: 3653: 3622: 3605: 3585: 3568: 3551: 3534: 3517: 3503: 3486: 3469: 3448: 3431: 3412: 3394: 3376: 3359: 3342: 3335: 3319: 3293: 3270: 3251: 3233: 3216: 3209: 3199: 3193: 3183: 3159: 3135: 3118: 3098: 3084: 3067: 3048: 3038:Reaper Eternal 3031: 3004: 2981: 2965: 2948: 2931: 2899: 2880: 2847: 2820: 2799: 2782: 2748: 2734: 2721: 2713:Rhododendrites 2704: 2681: 2668: 2662: 2645: 2626: 2603: 2580: 2562: 2542: 2525: 2502: 2473: 2456: 2439: 2425: 2411:Strong support 2408: 2386: 2369: 2346: 2329: 2302: 2284: 2270:John M Wolfson 2264:Reminds me of 2262: 2254: 2248:Strong support 2245: 2224: 2212:Looks good. - 2207: 2182: 2153: 2134: 2122: 2105: 2092: 2075: 2060: 2054:old fashioned! 2038: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2028: 2027: 2022: 2017: 2011: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2002: 2001: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1981: 1976: 1971: 1965: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1956: 1955: 1950: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1932: 1931: 1924: 1917: 1909: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1879: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1775: 1749: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1712: 1615:non-notability 1588: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1568: 1500: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1480: 1464: 1445: 1435: 1434: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1399: 1387:WP:COMMONSENSE 1362: 1360: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1336: 1317: 1303: 1276: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1252: 1238: 1194: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1174: 1145: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1125: 1080: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1060: 1038: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1018: 967: 966: 965: 955: 947:92% authorship 866: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 829: 807: 751: 744: 743: 742: 741: 731: 683: 676: 675: 674: 673: 663: 638: 631: 630: 629: 628: 618: 576: 569: 568: 567: 566: 556: 498: 491: 490: 489: 488: 478: 429: 422: 421: 420: 419: 409: 391: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 364:why we have it 303: 302: 301: 300: 236: 235: 234: 233: 211: 208: 207: 206: 196: 158:old fashioned! 139: 136: 120: 117: 66: 63: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6677: 6666: 6663: 6662: 6660: 6650: 6648: 6643: 6637: 6635: 6631: 6627: 6624: 6622: 6621:the talk page 6617: 6616: 6615: 6614: 6610: 6606: 6596: 6592: 6588: 6584: 6583: 6582: 6578: 6574: 6570: 6568: 6564: 6560: 6555: 6554: 6527: 6524: 6522: 6520: 6519: 6514: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6504: 6500: 6496: 6492: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6484: 6481: 6478: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6453: 6449: 6445: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6437: 6434: 6431: 6427: 6423: 6419: 6413: 6408: 6407: 6406: 6402: 6398: 6393: 6392: 6391: 6390: 6389: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6360: 6357: 6356: 6355: 6352: 6349: 6346: 6342: 6339: 6338: 6337: 6334: 6332: 6330: 6329: 6324: 6320: 6316: 6310: 6305: 6304: 6303: 6300: 6297: 6294: 6290: 6289: 6288: 6284: 6280: 6275: 6270: 6269: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6255: 6254: 6253: 6249: 6245: 6240: 6235: 6233: 6229: 6225: 6220: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6214: 6210: 6206: 6202: 6197: 6196: 6192: 6187: 6183: 6179: 6175: 6170: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6159: 6155: 6147: 6143: 6140: 6135: 6129: 6126: 6124: 6121: 6120:Voice of Clam 6117: 6116:O Still Small 6112: 6109: 6107: 6103: 6099: 6095: 6092: 6090: 6086: 6082: 6078: 6075: 6073: 6070: 6069: 6066: 6061: 6059: 6055: 6051: 6047: 6044: 6042: 6039: 6034: 6028: 6025: 6023: 6019: 6015: 6011: 6008: 6006: 6002: 5998: 5994: 5991: 5989: 5985: 5981: 5977: 5974: 5972: 5968: 5964: 5960: 5957: 5955: 5951: 5947: 5943: 5940: 5938: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5925: 5922: 5920: 5916: 5912: 5908: 5905: 5903: 5898: 5892: 5891: 5884: 5880: 5878: 5875: 5873: 5870: 5868: 5865: 5863: 5861: 5855: 5852: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5834: 5831: 5829: 5826: 5822: 5819: 5817: 5813: 5809: 5805: 5802: 5796: 5792: 5788: 5784: 5780: 5779: 5778: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5756: 5755: 5746: 5742: 5739: 5737: 5733: 5729: 5725: 5722: 5720: 5716: 5713: 5709: 5708: 5703: 5702: 5693: 5690: 5688: 5684: 5680: 5676: 5673: 5671: 5667: 5663: 5659: 5656: 5654: 5649: 5645: 5640: 5639: 5634: 5631: 5629: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5614: 5612: 5608: 5604: 5600: 5597: 5595: 5591: 5587: 5583: 5580: 5578: 5575: 5573: 5568:No concerns. 5567: 5564: 5558: 5553: 5545: 5539: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5529: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5496: 5494: 5490: 5486: 5482: 5479: 5477: 5473: 5469: 5465: 5462: 5460: 5457: 5455: 5432: 5430: 5424: 5421: 5419: 5416: 5411: 5409: 5408: 5400: 5397: 5395: 5391: 5387: 5383: 5380: 5378: 5374: 5370: 5366: 5363: 5358: 5354: 5353: 5350: 5345: 5342: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5325: 5323: 5319: 5316: 5313: 5310: 5307: 5300: 5299: 5294: 5291: 5289: 5286: 5282: 5279: 5277: 5272: 5266: 5262: 5255: 5252: 5250: 5246: 5242: 5238: 5229: 5225: 5222: 5220: 5217: 5216: 5211: 5208: 5206: 5201: 5196: 5188: 5185: 5183: 5180: 5178: 5174: 5170: 5164: 5161: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5150:wikitigresito 5147: 5144: 5142: 5139: 5136: 5130: 5127: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5110: 5108: 5104: 5100: 5096: 5094: 5091: 5087: 5084: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5067: 5065: 5061: 5055: 5048: 5045: 5037: 5033: 5029: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5019: 5013: 5006: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4981: 4979: 4968: 4964: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4926: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4898: 4894: 4890: 4887: 4885: 4882: 4879: 4875: 4872: 4870: 4867: 4866: 4859: 4856: 4854: 4851: 4849: 4845: 4842: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4825: 4823: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4809: 4807: 4804: 4800: 4797: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4780: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4760: 4756: 4754: 4750: 4747: 4745: 4740: 4733: 4729: 4726: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4710: 4707: 4706: 4699: 4696: 4694: 4691: 4689: 4684: 4683: 4677: 4674: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4607: 4604: 4602: 4598: 4597: 4592: 4590: 4584: 4582: 4577: 4571: 4568: 4566: 4562: 4561: 4554: 4550: 4547: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4530: 4528: 4520: 4515: 4510: 4507: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4490: 4488: 4485: 4482: 4478: 4475: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4458: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4441: 4439: 4436: 4431: 4429: 4425: 4422: 4420: 4416: 4409: 4408: 4402: 4399: 4397: 4394: 4390: 4385: 4377: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4360: 4358: 4355: 4349: 4346: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4325: 4323: 4320: 4313: 4312: 4307: 4304: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4287: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4276:ZettaComposer 4273: 4270: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4253: 4251: 4248: 4245: 4242: 4240: 4237: 4232: 4227: 4221: 4218: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4201: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4184: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4163: 4161: 4157: 4149: 4142: 4139: 4137: 4134: 4132: 4126: 4120: 4117: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4101: 4098: 4096: 4094: 4088: 4085: 4083: 4078: 4077: 4072: 4071: 4066: 4065: 4059: 4056: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4039: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4018: 4016: 4013: 4011: 4005: 4002: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3991:Airbornemihir 3988: 3985: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3973: 3972: 3965: 3963: 3960: 3959: 3952: 3949: 3947: 3944: 3940: 3938: 3935: 3930: 3925: 3922: 3920: 3917: 3916: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3901: 3895: 3892: 3890: 3887: 3884: 3877: 3874: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3853: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3836: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3819: 3817: 3812: 3808: 3803: 3800: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3783: 3781: 3778: 3773: 3767: 3764: 3762: 3759: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3735: 3733: 3730: 3725: 3723:GrammarDamner 3719: 3716: 3714: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3678: 3674: 3671: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3654: 3652: 3647: 3641: 3634: 3632: 3626: 3623: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3606: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3591: 3586: 3584: 3581: 3575: 3569: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3552: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3535: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3518: 3516: 3513: 3512: 3507: 3504: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3487: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3468: 3465: 3463: 3458: 3452: 3449: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3432: 3430: 3427: 3422: 3421: 3416: 3413: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3395: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3387: 3380: 3377: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3349:Djm-leighpark 3346: 3343: 3341: 3338: 3333: 3323: 3320: 3318: 3310: 3308: 3297: 3294: 3292: 3289: 3287: 3286: 3280: 3274: 3271: 3269: 3266: 3261: 3255: 3252: 3250: 3247: 3246: 3241: 3234: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3217: 3215: 3212: 3207: 3203: 3200: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3191: 3187: 3184: 3182: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3160: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3148: 3147: 3140: 3136: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3119: 3117: 3114: 3111: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3099: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3066: 3063: 3052: 3049: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3032: 3030: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3008: 3005: 3003: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2975: 2972: 2966: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2949: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2932: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2907: 2903: 2900: 2898: 2895: 2892: 2890: 2884: 2881: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2868: 2855: 2851: 2848: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2830: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2783: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2731: 2725: 2722: 2720: 2715: 2708: 2705: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2666: 2663: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2646: 2644: 2639: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2619:(Talk to me!) 2615: 2613: 2607: 2604: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2590: 2584: 2581: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2566: 2563: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2515: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2452: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2409: 2407: 2402: 2397: 2390: 2387: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2370: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2312: 2311: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2285: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2241: 2234: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2206: 2203: 2201: 2187: 2183: 2181: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2152: 2149: 2146: 2145: 2143:Nnadigoodluck 2138: 2135: 2133: 2130: 2127: 2123: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2074: 2071: 2069: 2067: 2066: 2062:As nominator 2061: 2059: 2055: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2026: 2023: 2021: 2018: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2010: 2006: 2000: 1997: 1995: 1992: 1990: 1987: 1985: 1982: 1980: 1977: 1975: 1972: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1964: 1960: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1943: 1939: 1930: 1925: 1923: 1918: 1916: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1900: 1896: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1778: 1772: 1767: 1763: 1760: 1759: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1715: 1709: 1705: 1700: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1589: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1577: 1573: 1571: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548:WikiEtiquette 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1501: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1483: 1477: 1473: 1472:Katelyn Tuohy 1468: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1424: 1423: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1402: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1359: 1358:User:DESiegel 1355: 1354: 1345: 1341: 1339: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1320: 1315: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1279: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1198: 1195: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1177: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1134: 1130: 1128: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1084: 1081: 1079: 1078:JavaHurricane 1075: 1074: 1069: 1065: 1063: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1032: 1027: 1023: 1021: 1015: 1010: 1006: 1002: 999: 998: 997: 993: 988: 981: 975: 971: 968: 964: 960: 958: 952: 948: 944: 943: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 906: 905: 904: 900: 895: 888: 882: 881:WP:NOTCLEANUP 878: 874: 870: 867: 865: 861: 860: 851: 847: 843: 839: 838: 833: 830: 825: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 812: 810: 804: 800: 795: 790: 786: 782: 778: 775: 774: 773: 769: 765: 761: 760: 755: 752: 750: 746: 745: 740: 736: 734: 728: 724: 720: 716: 715:editcountitis 712: 708: 704: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 687: 684: 682: 678: 677: 672: 668: 666: 660: 656: 652: 648: 645: 644: 642: 639: 637: 633: 632: 627: 623: 621: 615: 611: 607: 602: 598: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 580: 577: 575: 571: 570: 565: 561: 559: 553: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527:ten year test 523: 520: 519: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 499: 497: 493: 492: 487: 483: 481: 475: 468: 461: 457: 453: 452:WP:RELISTBIAS 448: 444: 441: 440: 438: 433: 430: 428: 424: 423: 418: 414: 412: 406: 401: 398: 397: 395: 392: 390: 386: 385: 384: 381: 380:two questions 377: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352: 351:Casting About 347: 343: 339: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 314: 311: 310: 308: 305: 304: 298: 294: 291: 287: 283: 279: 278:Lady Bathurst 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 244: 243: 241: 238: 237: 230: 226: 223: 222: 220: 217: 216: 215: 209: 205: 201: 199: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 176:User:Eddie893 173: 172:User:Eddie892 169: 166: 165: 164: 163: 159: 153: 149: 145: 138:Co-nomination 137: 135: 134: 131: 130: 119:Co-nomination 118: 116: 115: 112: 110: 108: 107: 101: 97: 93: 92:good articles 89: 85: 81: 78: 75: 71: 64: 62: 61: 60: 56: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 6641: 6638: 6618: 6602: 6559:TonyBallioni 6517: 6472: 6464: 6417: 6327: 6273: 6151: 6127: 6110: 6093: 6076: 6065:Usedtobecool 6063: 6045: 6026: 6009: 5992: 5975: 5963:Chandan Guha 5958: 5941: 5931: 5930: 5923: 5906: 5889: 5882: 5874: 5871: 5859: 5853: 5832: 5823:. Good luck! 5820: 5803: 5783:Mdaniels5757 5763: 5762: 5751: 5740: 5723: 5697: 5695: 5691: 5674: 5657: 5636: 5632: 5615: 5598: 5581: 5571: 5565: 5515: 5514: 5502:Hughesdarren 5497: 5480: 5463: 5453: 5428: 5422: 5406: 5404: 5398: 5386:GoodCrossing 5381: 5364: 5347: 5343: 5326: 5314: 5308: 5296: 5292: 5280: 5253: 5223: 5214: 5209: 5186: 5176: 5172: 5168: 5162: 5145: 5128: 5111: 5085: 5068: 5046: 4993:beforehand. 4977: 4930: 4888: 4877: 4873: 4862: 4857: 4843: 4826: 4812: 4811: 4798: 4781: 4764: 4748: 4727: 4701: 4697: 4687: 4681: 4675: 4606:Weak Support 4605: 4595: 4588: 4580: 4575: 4569: 4556: 4548: 4531: 4508: 4491: 4476: 4459: 4442: 4423: 4406: 4400: 4380: 4361: 4347: 4331:Mdaniels5757 4326: 4310: 4305: 4288: 4271: 4254: 4219: 4202: 4185: 4173:Peacemaker67 4164: 4140: 4130: 4118: 4092: 4086: 4075: 4069: 4063: 4057: 4040: 4023: 4019: 4010:CAPTAIN RAJU 4009: 4003: 3986: 3970: 3969: 3954: 3950: 3923: 3914:Lee Vilenski 3911: 3907: 3893: 3882: 3875: 3854: 3837: 3820: 3801: 3784: 3765: 3753: 3736: 3717: 3702: 3685: 3681: 3672: 3655: 3630: 3624: 3607: 3588: 3553: 3536: 3519: 3511:Celestina007 3509: 3505: 3488: 3471: 3461: 3456: 3450: 3433: 3420:YorkshireLad 3419: 3414: 3396: 3385: 3384: 3378: 3361: 3344: 3321: 3306: 3295: 3284: 3283: 3272: 3253: 3236: 3218: 3201: 3190: 3185: 3174: 3173: 3165: 3161: 3152: 3145: 3144: 3138: 3120: 3107: 3100: 3069: 3050: 3033: 3021: 3020: 3012: 3011: 3006: 2994: 2983: 2950: 2933: 2910:— Preceding 2901: 2888: 2882: 2857: 2854:my standards 2849: 2822: 2801: 2784: 2754: 2750: 2729: 2723: 2706: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2673: 2672: 2664: 2647: 2631:no brainer. 2628: 2618: 2611: 2605: 2595: 2588: 2582: 2568: 2564: 2548:WP:NOBIGDEAL 2544: 2527: 2504: 2475: 2463:Gog the Mild 2458: 2441: 2429:TonyBallioni 2410: 2388: 2371: 2356: 2348: 2331: 2321: 2315: 2309: 2304: 2286: 2247: 2226: 2209: 2185: 2167: 2156: 2141: 2136: 2107: 2077: 2064: 2042:As co-nom -- 1892: 1891: 1871: 1865: 1859: 1853: 1847: 1841: 1834: 1827: 1821: 1774: 1761: 1751: 1711: 1656:(the former 1641: 1623: 1618: 1614: 1590: 1567: 1520: 1502: 1479: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1425: 1415: 1398: 1378: 1374: 1364: 1335: 1275: 1267: 1254: 1244: 1240: 1213: 1209: 1202: 1196: 1173: 1161: 1157: 1147: 1124: 1101:the teahouse 1088: 1082: 1059: 1046: 1040: 1017: 1000: 969: 954: 940: 907: 868: 836: 835: 806: 776: 758: 757: 753: 730: 718: 706: 702: 685: 662: 646: 640: 617: 596: 578: 555: 546: 521: 500: 477: 467:Not a ballot 442: 431: 408: 399: 393: 379: 372: 349: 312: 306: 245: 239: 224: 218: 213: 195: 167: 141: 128:Lee Vilenski 125: 122: 105: 76: 68: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 6224:Nosebagbear 6062:Good luck! 6014:Jason Quinn 6012:Good luck. 5825:— sparklism 5468:Gleeanon409 5228:my criteria 5195:RegentsPark 5134:Doug Weller 5097:Support. ‐‐ 4935:Daniel Case 4893:Daniel Case 4831:LordPeterII 3928:‑Scottywong 3863:AppleBsTime 3741:Newyorkbrad 3682:participant 3570:Why not? -- 3074:Ad Orientem 2789:Nosebagbear 2741:revolutions 2572:scope_creep 2488:samian ware 2168:SMcCandlish 2025:User rights 2015:CentralAuth 1727:LordPeterII 1629:LordPeterII 1586:LordPeterII 1222:sockpuppets 1143:AppleBsTime 1009:redirection 723:Fabian Ware 509:Nosebagbear 496:Nosebagbear 254:Fabian Ware 84:Fabian Ware 6587:PackMecEng 6518:Ritchie333 6341:Ritchie333 6328:Ritchie333 5352:Farmbrough 5053:EPRICAVARK 5011:EPRICAVARK 4949:Mr rnddude 4925:Mr rnddude 4910:Mr rnddude 4784:per nom – 4763:Yep, easy 4447:Netherzone 4366:EdJohnston 4329:Clueful. — 4293:Alan Islas 4045:Malcolmxl5 3842:Cwmhiraeth 3612:PhilKnight 3579:Parlez Moi 3573:Guerillero 3401:Cavalryman 3053:Why not? - 2906:Ritchie333 2889:CaptainEek 2589:Astrophobe 2550:. Thanks. 2415:epicgenius 2065:Ritchie333 2008:Cross-wiki 1989:AfD closes 1807:Discussion 1699:WP:GEOLAND 1674:WP:WEBCRIT 1660:) and the 1650:this table 1595:notability 1540:harassment 1528:incivility 1391:WP:NOTBURO 1290:this close 1036:Sir Joseph 920:WP:NOTPLOT 789:this paper 541:, and the 290:Juneteenth 106:Ritchie333 65:Nomination 31:successful 6495:WP:NACPIT 6469:WP:BADNAC 6422:WP:BADNAC 6259:Barkeep49 6239:Barkeep49 6205:Barkeep49 6037:(discuss) 5215:Jianhui67 5073:Ita140188 5028:Foxnpichu 4995:Foxnpichu 4657:Foxnpichu 4614:Foxnpichu 4496:DannyS712 4022:- Gave a 3971:Steel1943 3807:Vanamonde 3558:Kaizenify 3336:(blether) 3244:Hurricane 3137:Happy to 3088:Barkeep49 2988:Cas Liber 2552:Mike Peel 2126:Mackensen 2112:Vexations 2082:Ymblanter 1984:AfD votes 1979:BLP edits 1857:block log 1690:WP:SIGCOV 1093:WP:ERRORS 1005:WP:NEXIST 974:WP:BEFORE 936:WP:BEFORE 574:Andrew D. 529:and will 447:WP:BADNAC 389:Andrew D. 333:ownership 55:Acalamari 6659:Category 6491:Levivich 6444:Levivich 6359:Levivich 6309:Levivich 6081:Eumat114 6032:Hawkeye7 5980:Donner60 5881:Pile on 5837:eddie891 5791:contribs 5768:Mikola22 5715:Contribs 5679:SilkTork 5620:Aoi (青い) 5603:Catlemur 5586:SamHolt6 5485:SchroCat 5245:contribs 5116:OrewaTel 4864:Flori4nK 4786:Ammarpad 4715:Naleksuh 4536:PJTraill 4481:paul2520 4392:Chequers 4339:contribs 3883:FitIndia 3645:contribs 3631:PCN02WPS 3176:Walwal20 2998:contribs 2974:a·po·des 2924:contribs 2912:unsigned 2776:contribs 2674:Rosguill 2669:signed, 2652:Mikola22 2492:Missvain 2322:Contribs 2278:contribs 2266:Double D 2252:Hog Farm 2214:Ret.Prof 2210:Support: 1999:PROD log 1962:Analysis 1941:Counters 1825:contribs 1815:Eddie891 1771:Eddie891 1708:Eddie891 1603:this one 1564:Eddie891 1556:not here 1524:Bullying 1476:Eddie891 1395:Eddie891 1332:Eddie891 1272:Eddie891 1230:WP:RBIAS 1170:Eddie891 1168:. Best, 1121:Eddie891 1056:Eddie891 1014:Eddie891 951:Eddie891 832:Eddie891 824:Eddie891 803:Eddie891 799:teahouse 785:WP:EIEIO 727:Eddie891 659:Eddie891 614:Eddie891 552:Eddie891 474:Eddie891 405:Eddie891 321:civility 192:Eddie891 80:contribs 70:Eddie891 47:Eddie891 6461:WP:SNOW 6323:WP:SNOW 6188:Neutral 6133:AC5230 6111:Support 6094:Support 6085:Message 6077:Support 6046:Support 6027:Support 6010:Support 5993:Support 5976:Support 5959:Support 5942:Support 5929:Dreamy 5924:Support 5911:Rlendog 5907:Support 5883:Support 5872:Support 5860:ZI Jony 5854:Support 5833:Support 5821:Support 5804:Support 5764:Support 5753:(｡◕‿◕｡) 5741:Support 5728:BusterD 5724:Support 5706:Hamster 5692:Support 5658:Support 5633:Support 5616:Support 5599:Support 5582:Support 5566:Support 5520:Dolotta 5516:Support 5498:Support 5481:Support 5464:Support 5423:Support 5399:Support 5382:Support 5365:Support 5344:Support 5331:Kierzek 5327:Support 5293:Support 5281:Support 5271:Kenton! 5260:Vincent 5254:Support 5224:Support 5210:Support 5200:comment 5187:Support 5163:Support 5146:Support 5129:Support 5112:Support 5086:Support 5069:Support 5047:Support 4889:Support 4881:Majavah 4874:Support 4858:Support 4844:Support 4827:Support 4799:Support 4782:Support 4765:Support 4749:Support 4732:iMahesh 4728:Support 4698:Support 4676:Support 4570:Support 4549:Support 4532:Support 4509:Support 4494:LGTM -- 4492:Support 4477:Support 4460:Support 4443:Support 4424:Support 4407:Aloha27 4401:Support 4362:Support 4353:Danre98 4348:Support 4327:Support 4306:Support 4289:Support 4272:Support 4259:Dolotta 4255:Support 4220:Support 4207:Maproom 4203:Support 4186:Support 4165:Support 4141:Support 4119:Support 4093:Bait30 4087:Support 4058:Support 4041:Support 4028:Leijurv 4020:Support 4004:Support 3987:Support 3957:Spencer 3951:Support 3941:Yep. — 3924:Support 3908:Support 3899:Harrias 3894:Support 3876:Support 3855:Support 3838:Support 3821:Support 3802:Support 3785:Support 3766:Support 3754:Support 3737:Support 3718:Support 3710:Snowman 3703:Support 3686:closing 3673:Support 3656:Support 3625:Support 3608:Support 3554:Support 3541:Wm335td 3537:Support 3520:Support 3506:Support 3489:Support 3472:Support 3451:Support 3434:Support 3415:Support 3397:Support 3386:The9Man 3379:Support 3362:Support 3345:Support 3322:Support 3296:Support 3273:Support 3254:Support 3223:Pamzeis 3219:Support 3206:~ Amkgp 3202:Support 3186:Support 3170:WP:NPOL 3162:Support 3139:support 3125:Enos733 3121:Support 3101:Support 3070:Support 3051:Support 3034:Support 3007:Support 2984:Support 2951:Support 2934:Support 2902:Support 2883:Support 2850:Support 2823:Support 2810:Smeat75 2802:Support 2785:Support 2751:Support 2737:spin me 2724:Support 2707:Support 2684:Support 2665:Support 2648:Support 2629:Support 2606:Support 2583:Support 2565:Support 2545:Support 2532:Dumelow 2528:Support 2505:Support 2476:Support 2459:Support 2442:Support 2389:Support 2372:Support 2349:Support 2332:Support 2305:Support 2287:Support 2227:Support 2157:support 2137:Support 2108:Support 2078:Support 2052:Become 2044:Dweller 2037:Support 1994:CSD log 1832:deleted 1704:WP:NPOL 1309:Leijurv 1294:Leijurv 1235:WP:SNOW 1192:Leijurv 1117:WP:AN/I 794:WP:BITE 636:Dolotta 156:Become 148:Dweller 6573:331dot 6513:WT:AfD 6426:WT:RFA 6148:Oppose 6050:Ifnord 5839:.view, 5808:331dot 5572:Nihlus 5233:python 5099:1997kB 4848:Kurtis 4682:Cullen 4553:Bilorv 4518:(talk) 4147:ɴᴋᴏɴ21 3493:Haukur 3438:ferret 3331:Summit 3264:(Talk) 3146:BD2412 3060:ASTILY 3023:apolis 2400:(talk) 2376:rogerd 2296:{talk} 2291:~SS49~ 2161:WP:NAC 2129:(talk) 2124:Sure. 1948:XTools 1459:, and 1383:WP:IAR 1259:relist 1097:WP:DYK 928:boldly 584:Andrew 456:WP:NHC 232:first. 184:An SPI 178:, and 6499:Dps04 6473:still 6448:Dps04 6418:can't 6412:Dps04 6397:Dps04 6279:Dps04 6244:hako9 5997:MONGO 5896:Chat 5890:Pedro 5700:Super 5648:typo? 5644:help! 5298:Kevin 5236:coder 4643:Nsk92 4629:Nsk92 4576:Class 4388:Spiel 4235:bolly 4225:Tolly 4131:T@1k? 4106:hako9 4064:L293D 3933:| || 3789:Pudeo 3758:Jayjg 3707:Giant 3690:Dps04 3660:Nsk92 3590:Kusma 3457:Davey 3328:Girth 3192:Flalf 2916:Atsme 2863:fried 2831:& 2804:- if 2730:78.26 2256:Bacon 2238:talk! 1895:civil 1839:count 1789:Nsk92 1747:Nsk92 1599:stubs 1506:view, 1243:do I 1105:PRODs 1052:WP:AN 982:& 889:& 427:Dps04 376:limit 16:< 6630:talk 6609:talk 6591:talk 6577:talk 6563:talk 6503:talk 6452:talk 6401:talk 6317:and 6283:talk 6274:some 6263:talk 6248:talk 6228:talk 6209:talk 6178:talk 6169:Diff 6158:talk 6138:talk 6102:talk 6054:talk 6018:talk 6001:talk 5984:talk 5967:talk 5950:talk 5946:Camy 5932:Jazz 5915:talk 5845:talk 5841:Tbiw 5812:talk 5787:talk 5772:talk 5732:talk 5712:Talk 5683:talk 5666:talk 5624:talk 5607:talk 5590:talk 5537:qedk 5524:talk 5506:talk 5489:talk 5472:talk 5405:brad 5390:talk 5373:talk 5349:Rich 5335:talk 5306:L235 5265:talk 5241:talk 5154:talk 5138:talk 5120:talk 5103:talk 5077:talk 5059:talk 5032:talk 5017:talk 4999:talk 4978:Sdkb 4972:{{u| 4953:talk 4939:talk 4914:talk 4897:talk 4835:talk 4815:EDDY 4790:talk 4773:talk 4738:talk 4719:talk 4704:Dane 4661:talk 4647:talk 4633:talk 4618:talk 4589:talk 4559:talk 4540:talk 4500:talk 4468:talk 4451:talk 4413:talk 4383:Ϣere 4370:talk 4335:talk 4297:talk 4280:talk 4263:talk 4244:Step 4211:talk 4194:talk 4155:talk 4110:talk 4049:talk 4032:talk 4024:very 3995:talk 3978:talk 3878:--- 3867:talk 3846:talk 3829:talk 3825:P-K3 3811:Talk 3793:talk 3776:Talk 3745:talk 3694:talk 3664:talk 3639:talk 3616:talk 3562:talk 3545:talk 3528:talk 3497:talk 3480:talk 3462:2010 3442:talk 3405:talk 3370:talk 3353:talk 3307:Sdkb 3301:{{u| 3239:Java 3227:talk 3129:talk 3105:Tera 3092:talk 3078:talk 3042:talk 3014:Mini 2992:talk 2971:Wug· 2959:talk 2942:talk 2920:talk 2872:talk 2866:okra 2860:Deep 2814:talk 2793:talk 2772:talk 2698:talk 2694:Ktin 2656:talk 2596:talk 2556:talk 2536:talk 2496:talk 2467:talk 2446:L3X1 2433:talk 2419:talk 2380:talk 2363:talk 2358:Glen 2340:talk 2316:Talk 2274:talk 2218:talk 2148:🇳🇬 2116:talk 2099:talk 2086:talk 2048:talk 1884:here 1869:rfar 1851:logs 1819:talk 1793:talk 1777:Work 1731:talk 1714:Work 1694:SNGs 1646:stub 1633:talk 1617:and 1570:Work 1512:talk 1508:Tbiw 1498:tbiw 1482:Work 1401:Work 1389:and 1379:very 1338:Work 1278:Work 1255:What 1245:feel 1214:what 1176:Work 1127:Work 1109:CSDs 1095:and 1062:Work 1020:Work 957:Work 846:talk 842:Ktin 809:Work 783:and 768:talk 764:Ktin 749:ktin 733:Work 719:what 711:this 694:talk 690:Tbiw 681:tbiw 665:Work 620:Work 588:talk 558:Work 539:here 535:here 513:talk 480:Work 458:and 411:Work 362:and 354:and 323:and 280:and 272:and 256:and 198:Work 152:talk 144:this 94:and 74:talk 6626:Mz7 6483:ich 6480:v!v 6465:any 6436:ich 6433:v!v 6351:ich 6348:v!v 6299:ich 6296:v!v 5675:Yes 5638:Guy 5303:aka 4931:did 4599:) 4581:455 4428:DES 4311:Axl 4247:hen 4151:❯❯❯ 3966:💯 3476:Deb 3278:Ged 3109:tix 2955:0qd 2717:\\ 2520:ich 2517:v!v 2177:😼 1875:spi 1845:AfD 1752:21. 1597:vs 1591:20. 1554:or 1542:or 1503:19. 1416:18. 1365:17. 1312:DES 1298:DES 1268:had 1241:How 1220:or 1210:Who 1197:16. 1148:15. 1083:14. 1041:13. 970:12. 869:11. 707:are 651:CCI 586:🐉( 547:lot 378:of 346:AFC 86:to 57:at 6661:: 6632:) 6611:) 6593:) 6579:) 6565:) 6515:. 6505:) 6477:Le 6454:) 6430:Le 6403:) 6345:Le 6293:Le 6285:) 6265:) 6250:) 6230:) 6211:) 6180:) 6160:) 6104:) 6087:) 6068:☎️ 6056:) 6020:) 6003:) 5986:) 5969:) 5952:) 5917:) 5893:: 5847:) 5814:) 5793:) 5789:• 5774:) 5734:) 5685:) 5668:) 5646:- 5626:) 5609:) 5592:) 5526:) 5508:) 5491:) 5474:) 5414:🍁 5392:) 5375:) 5337:) 5320:) 5267:) 5247:) 5243:| 5212:. 5193:-- 5156:) 5122:) 5105:) 5079:) 5062:) 5034:) 5020:) 5001:) 4984:}} 4955:) 4941:) 4929:I 4916:) 4908:. 4899:) 4837:) 4820:~ 4792:) 4775:) 4757:: 4721:) 4663:) 4649:) 4635:) 4620:) 4563:) 4542:) 4502:) 4484:💬 4470:) 4453:) 4372:) 4341:) 4337:• 4299:) 4282:) 4265:) 4213:) 4196:) 4179:) 4127:| 4112:) 4104:- 4073:• 4051:) 4034:) 3997:) 3980:) 3943:🦊 3869:) 3848:) 3831:) 3795:) 3747:) 3696:) 3666:) 3642:| 3618:) 3601:) 3576:| 3564:) 3547:) 3530:) 3499:) 3482:) 3444:) 3425:✿ 3407:) 3372:) 3355:) 3313:}} 3285:UK 3229:) 3221:- 3210:💬 3141:. 3131:) 3094:) 3080:) 3044:) 3000:) 2969:— 2961:) 2944:) 2926:) 2922:• 2904:- 2843:) 2816:) 2795:) 2778:) 2774:• 2766:bl 2763:ee 2760:zw 2739:/ 2700:) 2658:) 2612:Pi 2599:) 2585:- 2558:) 2538:) 2514:Le 2498:) 2469:) 2435:) 2421:) 2403:@ 2382:) 2365:) 2342:) 2325:) 2319:: 2280:) 2276:• 2232:Ed 2220:) 2165:— 2118:) 2101:) 2088:) 2050:) 1863:lu 1795:) 1762:A: 1733:) 1642:A: 1635:) 1627:-- 1538:, 1534:, 1530:, 1521:A: 1514:) 1455:, 1426:A: 1385:, 1375:A: 1371:? 1203:A: 1119:. 1089:A: 1047:A: 994:) 901:) 848:) 770:) 754:10 696:) 647:A: 641:8. 597:A: 590:) 579:7. 537:, 522:A: 515:) 501:6. 470:}} 464:{{ 443:A: 432:5. 400:A: 394:4. 313:A: 307:3. 264:, 260:, 252:: 246:A: 240:2. 225:A: 219:1. 182:. 174:, 154:) 146:-- 36:. 6628:( 6623:. 6607:( 6589:( 6575:( 6561:( 6501:( 6450:( 6414:: 6410:@ 6399:( 6311:: 6307:@ 6281:( 6261:( 6246:( 6226:( 6207:( 6176:( 6156:( 6100:( 6083:( 6052:( 6016:( 5999:( 5982:( 5965:( 5948:( 5913:( 5843:( 5810:( 5785:( 5770:( 5730:( 5696:~ 5681:( 5664:( 5650:) 5642:( 5622:( 5605:( 5588:( 5554:) 5551:c 5547:愛 5543:t 5540:( 5522:( 5504:( 5487:( 5470:( 5454:♥ 5449:y 5446:d 5443:o 5440:l 5437:e 5434:M 5429:♥ 5407:v 5388:( 5371:( 5359:. 5333:( 5318:c 5315:· 5312:t 5309:· 5301:( 5273:) 5269:( 5263:( 5239:( 5230:— 5202:) 5198:( 5177:a 5175:c 5173:z 5171:a 5169:m 5152:( 5118:( 5101:( 5075:( 5056:( 5051:L 5030:( 5014:( 5009:L 4997:( 4951:( 4937:( 4927:: 4923:@ 4912:( 4895:( 4878:– 4833:( 4788:( 4771:( 4741:) 4735:( 4717:( 4659:( 4645:( 4631:( 4616:( 4593:| 4585:( 4555:( 4538:( 4498:( 4466:( 4449:( 4368:( 4333:( 4315:¤ 4295:( 4278:( 4261:( 4230:4 4209:( 4192:( 4175:( 4108:( 4079:) 4076:✎ 4070:☎ 4067:( 4047:( 4030:( 3993:( 3976:( 3865:( 3844:( 3827:( 3813:) 3809:( 3791:( 3743:( 3692:( 3662:( 3648:) 3636:( 3614:( 3599:c 3597:· 3595:t 3593:( 3587:— 3560:( 3543:( 3526:( 3495:( 3478:( 3440:( 3411:. 3403:( 3368:( 3351:( 3225:( 3153:T 3127:( 3113:₵ 3090:( 3076:( 3057:F 3040:( 2995:· 2990:( 2976: 2957:( 2940:( 2918:( 2894:⚓ 2874:) 2870:( 2836:( 2834:C 2828:C 2812:( 2791:( 2770:( 2757:B 2743:) 2735:( 2696:( 2654:( 2640:) 2636:( 2593:( 2554:( 2534:( 2494:( 2465:( 2431:( 2417:( 2378:( 2361:( 2338:( 2313:( 2272:( 2216:( 2198:G 2195:M 2192:G 2175:¢ 2172:☏ 2114:( 2097:( 2084:( 2046:( 1928:e 1921:t 1914:v 1887:. 1877:) 1872:· 1866:· 1860:· 1854:· 1848:· 1842:· 1835:· 1828:· 1822:· 1817:( 1791:( 1729:( 1631:( 1510:( 1158:A 1001:A 987:( 985:C 979:C 908:A 894:( 892:C 886:C 844:( 826:: 822:@ 792:( 777:A 766:( 703:A 692:( 686:9 511:( 299:. 150:( 77:· 72:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Eddie891 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index