Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3

3919:

In my most recent instacne where I saw something from this candidate, I thought the support was abrasive to the 46 editors opposing and given that the opposes were well written with many diffs provided, I found that it demonstrated poor judgment. It is important that admins have good judgment. I do note in my oppose here that I have seen other good qualities of this candidate and as mentioned several times, I am likely to give the candidate another chance when I am done going back and forth here and have an opportunity to relook over the totality of the candidate's edits. I also note that since I opposed several others have opposed for different reasons and I need to review those to see if their concerns are sufficient to prevent me from supporting as well. But the idea that I only oppose people because they disagree with me is total misreading and distortion of the reality of why I oppose, especially because again, I more often than not support and I'm sure you could probably find plenty of instances where editors I supported made arguments I wouldn't agree with, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt nonetheless. One last note, I see below that another editor has said to also oppose due to poor judgment on the candidate's part, but does not provide an example. Why so interested in always challenging me, but not others who may make the same argument, but not even provide diffs? Sincerely, --

3803:

evidence has been presented to that effect, I cannot help but feel baffled if not insulted when it is dismissed in a support "vote" by someone. Because we want admins who think carefully when dealing with editors, i.e. who don't always assume they are right and who won't stick to a block no matter if anyone suggests maybe the blocked person can get another chance. Again, I can absolutely understand someone reading the 46 opposes and wanting to give him a good faith chance anyway, but to do so in a manner that almost mocks the opposes just doesn't sit well with me. Besides, I think most adults can handle an oppose or two and especially when the person making the oppose, in this case me, is outright saying that it is tentative and will likely be revised in short order. If say instead of my usual antagonists commenting, the candidate had attempted to discuss with me in a mature manner even if to agree to disagree then as has happened at several RfAs, I might have already switched from oppose as I still might do, because I don't want to blame the candidate for what other editors say or do. Sincerely, --

1351:

create derivative works of it, perform it or display it without my say so". As you can probably tell, copyright is a much more restrictive and across the board type of intellectual rights protection than a trademark, but requires a significant level of creativity to be used. From this information, I can surmise that images that are copyrighted are much more creative and restricted, while trademarked images are less creative (and in some cases qualify for public domain), but we must take care using them in situations where their use could be interpreted as a "tick of approval" from the company that uses that trademark. Both types of images are allowed on Knowledge (XXG), with certain trademarked images permitted on Commons instead. Copyrighted images require a fair use statement to be used on the site (this is not just a site rule, but part of copyright law) and are generally permitted if a user can demonstrate why they meet our

4440:. In that, I meant something along the lines of "Firstly, I'm going to determine a person's basic stance. OK, their bolded not-vote is Support. I now shall judge the rationale behind their not-vote now that I know their basic stance". I most definitely would not be judging the bolding in any primary way (if at all), but would be using it to gain context on what a person's !vote is referring to. To show you what I mean by context, if I take a !vote from this RfA and removing the bolded text we are left with "No reason not to". Now, that !vote makes no sense when you take the contextual information away from it (in this case, the bolding) and the vote is wholly ambiguous (does he mean there is no reason not to oppose, or no reason not to support, or no reason not to be neutral?). But, if we put it back into some context " 3798:

expected and it doesn't accomplish anything. Maybe if you and the other candidate were nice and understanding, it wouldn't make me and many others oppose in these sorts of discussions. Maybe if attempts to reach out as I have actually tried with you were made, we could actually get somewhere. Instead, you come out at me in a manner that makes someone want to just say to heck with it and dig in rather than reflect on things. Notice how say BOZ commented. That is the sort of remark that makes me think, okay, you know what, in a dozen or so hours, I'll rethink things here. It's challenging, but constructively so. But your approach is the kind that makes it where out of principal alone I don't want to give into such badgering from someone whom I have tried to reach out to as seen at

3816:, your rationales are so unfair to candidates as to make compliance with them impossible. It's also immensely petty. A user disagreed with you and suddenly all of his edits and accomplishments are out the window—only this perceived slight to your impeccable judgment matters to you. If you wonder why people respond to you so negatively, it's because of these petty rationales, and also how you are simply unable to deal with people who don't like you. I suggest you read DGG's comments at your editor review from top to bottom. Dropping a nice comment on someone's talk page doesn't come across as "reaching out". It's like a slap in the face. It's like I beat you out for a job and then sent flowers to your house. I'm not "reaching out"; I'm insulting you. — 3775:

maturely, I am always open to that, but I can't take seriously feigned hyperbole. Otherwise, as I've said above, I am willing to give this candidate a second thought on Sunday. I plan to do so objectively and one way to make me not want to change my mind and which would not be doing the candidate any favors would be to needlessly harangue me. If the candidate truly stands up as qualified then I will indeed gladly reconsider as I have changed stances in several RfAs after the candidate responded maturely and caused me to reflect positively on them. Don't make things needlessly worse for the candidate when I was hoping to reconsider anyway. Sincerely, --

830:

decision depending on the severity of their actions. If one or both of them had breached 3RR, they'd be warned, if they haven't been already, and blocked if they already had been. If one of them was performing blatant vandalism, they'd be warned or blocked, depending on a bunch of factors (severity, previous warnings, amount, vandalism-only account etc). If it is a persistent edit war (and both sides weren't vandals etc), I would try and get both sides of the story and try to mediate their dispute and help them come to a compromise. If either/one side will not cease edit warring after appropriate warnings, then block(s) will be issued.

1293:

the question both exhausting and confusing. There does not appear to be a straight (and short, mind you) answer anywhere I can find talking about the differences between trademarked images and copyrighted images, so I had to browse many, many, many sites for little bits of information to piece the entire thing together. I should also say, before you read my answer, that I have never had any intention of working with image licensing and trying to answer this question as probably put me off the topic for a long while yet

800:. Consensus is very hard to define, but it can be seen as when a majority (or super-majority in some cases) of individuals with winning arguments come to a decision on something. Determining consensus on a talk page is a matter of judging opinion by interpreting people's stances on an issue using their comments on an issue, the type of consensus seen on talk pages is that regarding someones actions on an article. At XfD and DRV, consensus can be more easily determined by firstly viewing the bolded 855:

you have to wait... and wait... and wait... until finally someone who can help you comes online. But the inefficiency doesn't stop there, then the admin you ask has to also review that case to make sure you're not lying just to get a user blocked. So what could take one review of the case and a 2 second whack of the blockhammer turns into a ~10 minute wait on irc, a ~5-10 minute review by an admin, a 2 second blockhammering and then another ~2 minutes tagging and closing the case by me.

2893:. My main concern is that your signature persistently annoys me for some reason, and gives me the impression that you're about nine years old. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, a spectacularly poor reason to oppose an RfA! :D I've had no other concerns about your editing in the past few months, there's been a wide variety of generally intelligent and well-thought-out contributions to various aspects of the encyclopedia and to the project space. I think you'd do well with the tools. ~ 998:

acceptable stub/article. If edits are not made in a couple of hours or the article is looking to be unsuitable for inclusion, I would userfy the page and leave a message on the creator's talk page on what userfication is, why I did it, and how the page can be moved back into the article space once sufficient work has been done on it to rectify those problems (or in a case where the article will never be notable, explaining why it cannot be included in Knowledge (XXG)).

3784:"True colors"? Wow, I'm sure the other five people who have commented on your oppose agree with you. I don't particularly care about your feelings; I care about candidates getting the short end of the stick with an extremely unfair set of criteria being applied to them that is immensely petty, as this !vote is. RfA is already an intense process and having !votes like the one you have here isn't helping it. — 3212:. A strong record of content contribution (GAs and a future FA). I think outstanding issues from the previous RfAs have been resolved. There is an unfortunate tendency for a past RfA to poison future RfAs that would have passed easily if the earlier RfA had never taken place. What I see here is a good editor, and not someone who will delete the mainpage or use the tools in a content dispute. 943:(This is a follow-up question based on your response to question 3.) In your response to question 3, you said that you left both pronunciations in the article and that you thought this to be a reasonable way of dealing with the dispute. Could you explain why ending the dispute in this way was reasonable (in your opinion), given that the other pronunciation was unsourced? 475:

information is well and good, enforcing such a policy over tens of thousands of BLPs with such an editor base as we have now (particularly when mis-information can be hard to detect) can be impossible at times. I suppose the policy could be stricter, with instant blocks on those posting libel, but I don't know if they would help the situation, or cause even more problems.

2276: 1029:, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX". 425:), they brought up valid points on the section and provided reasoning as to why it may not be entirely relevant; I gave my opinion again, but it was clear that the consensus was that the section was not suitable for the article. I reacted by following the suggestion of one of the users by removing the content and creating a new article; 927:. I would close the discussion as delete if there really was no rough consensus, provided the claims about vandalism are substantiated and not blown out of proportion; one incident of 'John Doe is the mayor IS A PENIS of the City of New York' does not warrant a deletion, but repeated vandalism, particularly of the libelous kind, does. 4386:

understand your point, though; you could level the accusation of "saying the right things to become an admin" at any user at RfA who is saying the right things. If you feel he's still doing the things that got him in trouble before you should be able to find diffs in which he shows "poor judgement" and "fails to assume good faith".

3751:

should at least give one cause for pause. I can wholly understand good faith supports a la say how Casliber's support is written, i.e. it acknowledges the opposes, but wants to give the candidate a chance, but to dismiss the opposes altogether is poor. And again, I am likely to revisit this stance tomorrow. Sincerely, --

82:) – I first encountered Foxy Loxy after his last failed RfA. Many of the opposes were for things that did not relate to his editing abilities or his potential as a candidate, but over the last few months I've seen Foxy work hard to correct the points brought up by the more relevant opposes. Foxy spends a lot of time around 4772:. I initially opposed, but on further inspection of the candidate's edit history, there are more positives than negative. I do note that some others also offer reasons to oppose and would like to see how these are addressed further before deciding if I should move to support. In any event, Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- 2938:- I see you as a friendly and trusted user who should make a good admin, I supported you at your last RfA and I see no reason not do so again. I do think the main oppose issue at your last RfA, based upon deciding to re-start it, was heavily overblown. The opposes in this RfA are not very convincing either. 3918:

I didn't oppose them simply for disagreeing, but for how they disagreed. You can make a compelling and policy based reason for deletion. I may not agree with it, but hey, it's written in an academic way. It's nonsensical "delete as cruft" non-arguments that are usually rapid fire that concern me.

1035:

Although the BLP policy states that any unsourced information that is even potentially libelious must go (which is all of them). The serious ones (ones that I would be very active in deleting without sources), IMO, are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I choose 7 and 8 as well because, despite what we would like,

912:

Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do

586:

Related to the next question, do you have any areas you have edited on this or any other Knowledge (XXG) username ever that you are especially passionate, fervent, or ideological about in real life? Will you be willing to list these here and publicly vow to not use your admin tools in ANY capacity on

513:

people and checkusers prevent sockpuppets; the AfD voters help to reach consensus on deletions; the administrators protect the project with protections and blocks, the mediators diffuse disputes. It goes on like this, with every different type of editor linking into the mesh to do their small part in

491:

I personally support the following: Flagged Protection instead of semi-protection as it still allows some form of open editing and prevents messy editprotected requests. Flagged Revisions on all BLPs (granted, only if we can demonstrate an ability to combat the backlog), as I discussed in question 5,

3871:

Yeah, people who don't overly involve themselves in the inclusion battle or people who agree with your stance on inclusion. A few !votes against your inclusion beliefs and the oppose is thrown up. As for what my comment was addressing, namely your oppose on this RfA, it's incredibly petty. Candidate

3640:

Question three looks more like a content dispute than vandalism, and their actions in such were inappropriate. The first revert is okay, but any afterward should have brought others into it and seek a third party. The candidate does not seem to consciously follow this, which makes me not feel secure

3573:

That said, and in a spirit of fairness, Foxy Loxy is much improved from the last go around. My reason for opposing right now is that you failed only this past October because of issues concerning your maturity, as well as an appearance that you approach Knowledge (XXG) as if it is World of Warcraft.

1350:

or a product that is dissimilar, but could be confused by a consumer to be related to the products of the company whose trademark is being utilized. On the other hand, copyright (which can only cover works with sufficient creativity) basically says "this is my work, you can't copy it, distribute it,

854:

To be completely honest; convenience and efficiency are the two most pressing reasons, followed by a want to help out more. It gets quite irritating when you find some time to do some clerk work at SPI, review a case and prepare to close and find no one willing is around to block the socks involved;

829:

Firstly, I would contact both users asking politely that they both stop immediately. I then would take a step back from the situation to have a look at what is being reverted, evidence as to why it is being reverted and view several possible actions (block, protect, just talk to them etc) and make a

4574:

Sadly, I'm afraid I can't see the candidate as being a completely trustworthy admin. Most people are fine during day-to-day life, and FL could definitely be a competent admin. However, under stress, when the tools actually make a difference and things are actually going to have major repurcussions,

4524:

Last time I checked being an administrator doesn't have any relation to the perceived "quality" of their votes at RfA; if this was RfB that'd be a perfectly valid oppose reason. I assume what you mean is "his badly-reasoned votes at RfA lead me to question his judgement", but if that is true surely

4181:

I stand corrected. Anyone who write articles of Mac OSs is OK with me about article work. But I still see little or no policy discussion, and that is even more important. I am reluctant to have to tell the candidate to wait yet some more and be more broadly involved, but it seems the best advice.

3946:

I agree that A Nobody's !vote here is fairly poor, and will probably be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. But I do not believe that A Nobody having massive tickets on himself, and being sour that Foxy Loxy doesn't think as highly of his "overwhelming evidence" as AN himself does, is a blockable

1292:

Before I go into the nitty-gritty of this question, I think I need to make some things clear. Today is the first time I have really gone into depth about copyright vs. trademark law, and, admittedly, it has befuddled me quite a bit. I found the entire process of researching the definitive answer to

896:

Well, articles generally go to AfD because of notability/verifiability concerns, with a BLP, not being entirely sure of the reliability/existence of sources is B A D (libel and such). Because of this, if people can't make up their minds the article should be deleted, just to be sure, I'd delete it.

648:

Editors are blocked from the project when; they are causing disruption or damage to the project (I.e. Vandalism), the project/WMF/editors rights, safety or property are being threatened (I.e. Personal attacks), it is discovered an IP is open or anonymous proxy, a user has been banned from Knowledge

545:

Essentially, yes. Our site is at times almost overrun, it would appear on given days, by people who can be safely described as "zealots" for one cause or the other, one nationality or the other, one religion or the other. Should such people be editing, essentially, or editing in a fashion where you

474:

aren't living. I would say that the current BLP policy (nothing that is unsourced and even remotely libelous can remain) is just right, the problem with BLPs is not the policy governing them, IMHO, but is rather a matter of enforcement of those rules. What I mean by this is, while removing libelous

3885:

I reckon for all of those above who I supported, one could find at least one instance in which they argued to delete something that I thought should be kept, but I supported them anyway... And notice in many of my reasons for support, I didn't even mention AfDs. It's not about disagreeing. After

3802:

only to be denigrated whenever an opportunity arises. That's where my concern is. I don't doubt that say Kww has done some constructive work for Knowledge (XXG), but in my experience, he like you does not reach out to opponents, seems to focus on the negative, and is totally unforgiving and when

3774:

I don't know why you feel the need to troll and attempt to bait me, but you have shown your true colors time and again and as such, you are not fooling anyone. It's always funny when those who say don't want me to comment to them don't hold back comemnting to me. If you ever want to deal with me

1258:

have deleted that article. If I am trying to decide if an article is on a notable topic, I would have read the article and clicked on the links within it; and after finding that two of the early contributors include a prime minster of Italy and a famous Bolshevik, I would conclude that the article

1112:

In my experience, usually any basic assertions that the person did something which might serve as an indication of notability are not contentious; the BLPs that are removed lack any indications whatsoever, or assert things that by our standards are not possibly notable, like being in a high school

339:

Did you, at any time, consider the content of what the IP was saying? For example, that Merriam Webster does not use IPA? I personally think that exchanges like this are the sort that lead to expertise withdrawal from en.wiki. So, in regards to this particular incident and future incidents, did

98:

are both Good Articles as the result of his work, with Xgrid certainly FA-worthy with some tweaks. He only has 2000-odd edits to the mainspace, yes, but when those edits have produced two GAs I think the numbers are moot; the content added is certainly of high quality, and contains more bytes than

1082:

Where in WP:BLP does it say that unsourced assertions of notability that would not be contentious must be removed? If you think they must be, you are in essence advocating a policy change to say that, with the result that all unsourced biographies must be speedy deleted. Is that what you actually

804:

someone has cast and then weighing the reasoning behind their !vote. The type of consensus seen at an XfD discussion is that of determining the worth of an article. The type of consensus seen at a deletion review is a re-evaluation of previous consensus at an XfD discussion or an evaluation of an

795:

a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some

685:

A page should be protected when; editors on a page are in a content dispute and are edit-warring (although in some cases, blocks may be more suited), the page suffers from persistent vandalism, the history is restored for deletion review, when page creation/re-creation needs to be prevented (I.e.

164:

timezone, and at some times am lucky to find another active clerk (there are only 13 active clerks, other than me and I might find one or two online at any time, they are scarce). This can sometimes turn the few minutes or hour spent reviewing a case into hours, or even days. To start off with, I

4385:

you really shouldn't judge RfAs based on the nominators attitude (otherwise the nominator comes back with a grudge and opposes you, which isn't a threat, simply something I've experienced). If you see no "real" change you should be able to provide diffs more recent than an old RfA. I don't quite

4281:

I'm not too vested in this particular RfA, but I think that a basic assumption of good faith up front would go a long way in interactions with other users. I'm disappointed in how Foxy Loxy handled the exchange with the IP in the example above, and I believe that it could have been avoided by a

4155:

As I noted above to Fuchs, two GAs (one of which is going to FA) is a pretty fair sign of a decent content contributor. I typically don't like candidates without enough content contributions, and totally agree with where that sentiment is coming from, but I think having several pieces of quality

3890:

people disagree. Do people provide arguments rather than votes? Do people carefully consider the articles under discussion. I've supported editors like Ecoleetage who was on the opposite side in several AfDs and was not persuaded by me to change his stance and as I said elsewhere I would support

3750:

Neither you nor Drilnoth have over forty editors opposing for a multitude of reasons. You and Drilnoth are obvious supports, but in the other candidate's case, forty-two editors (more than in his previous RfA) have seen fit to oppose and have offered more different reasons than last time. That

1014:

The simple answer is no. The more complex answer is; I'd follow my methods outlined in 16a, but instead of userfying when no content appears after a couple of hours, I would delete it and explain to the user how to create a sandbox in their userspace and then allow them to develop it there, like

4136:

It's not often that I disagree with you, DGG, but I do contest the statement that this candidate has "very little article work." As noted above, he has 2 GAs to his credit (more than I did when I went through RfA), one on the brink of FA as well. He has a fairly large mainspace count, though it

420:

and removed the section; which comprised most of my work on the article. I reverted the removal pending discussion and outlined my point of view on the section, and awaited a response from the original user so that we could come to an agreement, but no response came, so I dropped the issue. Two

4539:

While I respect your opinion and understand that anyone can oppose for any reason, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. People vote at RfA for reasons purely their own; while I understand the irony of me commenting on this, I think it's one thing to vote for a personal reason and another to vote

4259:

Many people aren't embarassed by being gay, but sexual orientation is a potentially contentious quality at WP. I'm surprised you didn't chide the candidate for its inclusion. And as for the OMG comment, apparently you subscribed to the opinion that the BLP policy is only a litigation avoidance

3797:

It reflects poorly on the candidate's judgment and as such it gives me a pause. Yes, those who are on the opposite side of AfDs and who also demonstrated poor judgment in that RfA rally against me, some in an unconstructively incivil manner that we have seen time and time again. That's to be

997:

It is not inconceivable that a user would create a page like that just to begin with, then build on the content gradually. Firstly, I would wait a couple of hours to see if any more edits are made; if they are, the speedy would be declined and I'd watch the page to make sure that it becomes an

1331:

a registered trademark confers a bundle of exclusive rights upon the registered owner, including the right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent

1285:

Can you explain the difference between copyrighted images and trademarked images? Are they allowed on Knowledge (XXG)? If so, under what circumstances. Where can one find a general disclaimer for trademarked images hosted on Knowledge (XXG)? Please take your time to research and answer these

4657:

Done. Although I would point out that there is little confusion to be had as even a partial username like that is still incredibly unique and your request just seems overly picky. Notice how I also wrote "MoP"? People know who I'm talking about, ergo, no need to write out the whole thing.

366:

This is why the IP reverted you--he/she was providing the IPA pronunciation. I don't know if it matters for your becoming an admin or not, but it's disappointing when wikipedia editors could have assumed the IP knew a thing or two, rather than demanding they provide sources, and you just

575:

You should not be able to detect any of their views in their edits; although granted, the topics they edit may suggest what areas they are interested in. This is because, irragardless of opinion, we must put our biases aside when editing and edit in only a neutral and factually accurate

3612:

Agree with my colleagues above. Repeat nominations of this sort put me more on edge because it's more likely the candidate is just trying to get adminship and muting flaws each go around. As such I would like to see a greater gap. Other than that I would like to see more content work.

4357:

response to my simple disagreement to your nomination of foxyloxy is unwarranted and you do your nomination of foxyloxy no favours with your attitude. There is more than enough imformation for me to form a simple opinion here on this page and I have read the two previous failed rfa's

1263:, and thus decline the speedy and suggest a different venue (if the user wishes to pursue deletion after discovering the nature of some of its early contributors). Really, because of the strictness of the CSD criterion, I would only deleted an article under A7 if the article really 99:

say a typofix. In my interactions with Foxy I've found him to be a polite, helpful user, and the comments on his talkpage reflect this. Hopefully RfA regulars will feel that SPI/CSD experience + excellent article work + politeness and helpfulness is an excellent formula to = tools.

1102:

The BLP policy doesn't say that non-contentious assertions of notability should be removed, but I thought it was implied by the question that all statements of notability were contentious (as they were removed), correct me if I'm wrong. Added some words in red to clarify my view.

2173: 169:

and choose an interesting task. Now this is where some people might say "I'll dive right in", but I have a different approach; I would spend at least a couple of hours and up to maybe a week having a through look through firstly the relevant process, policy and guideline pages

1060:

I believe that it would be proper to speedy delete the article, because, combining the BLP and CSD policies within that segment, we can discern that while the A7 criteria says unsourced assertions of notability are permitted, the BLP policy (which trumps CSD) does not allow

901:

and concrete evidence of notability/verifiability, I would be totally willing to undelete again or list at DR (whichever is better). It should be noted that, if I became an admin, for a while, my mode of operation would be to just leave any XfD I wasn't sure of for a better

2037:

I acknowledge that there were concerns 6 months ago (and maybe your mileage varies), but I'd only be interested in seeing frivolous, inane, or puerile behavior between then and now. It's a little unfair to penalize a candidate for something that was a problem during their

4726:: only really active for just over a year, less than 10,000 edits, not nearly active enough in the project, and particularly in the last few months and signs of a declining not increasing participation. Seems like the candidate is well on their way, but not there yet. -- 1165:, not a vote, meaning that the points raised in each bullet is weighed, not the amount of !votes. Similarly, talk page consensus is about weighing up points, but instead of the rigid format of an XfD, it is instead represented in the format of a discussion between users. 4260:

policy. As Jimbo has said many times in the context of BLP: "We need to get it right." In some jurisdictions, negative but true information can lead to litigation, so Jimbo's statement can only mean what it says: get it right for its own sake not for litigation's sake.

873:

What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

3574:

That you have since taken steps to prove otherwise is commendable, but because the nature of the concerns surrounded maturity and sound judgment, I really need to see a sustained trend of improvement over a longer period (for me, that would be this October).

4222:

I am not left with much comfort about the candidate's maturity and experience. I also think the candidate missed with thinking the "He is married" in uncontentious - put the line in the biography of a Roman Catholic priest, or someone engaged to be married.

1267:(which, as the criteria states, is a lower bar than notability). So an article contained "Billy Jones is a kid" is going to get deleted, but "Billy Jones was the first child astronaut" is going to stay and can have its deletion discussed at another venue. 3760:

Oh, please. This is infinitely worse than your inclusionism dribble. Someone supports someone you don't like and that's a reason to question their fitness for adminship? Disgusting. And for someone that agrees with your side of the inclusion spectrum. —

3283:- cut-and-paste from the last RfA: "I was inclined to oppose, but realized that an oppose merely perpetuates some of the "problems" of RfA today - opposes for procedural reasons, naming conventions, etc. Do I trust this candidate with the tools? Yes." 3936:

Note that he has basically admitted that much of his reason for opposing is his interactions with third parties, his "opponents". Foxy is not being judged here, an entire block of "editors" is being cast as demons. Time to block for cause. Sincerely,

750:

IAR should be used in situations when the exact wording of a rule is being used by someone to contradict the spirit of the rule. IAR allows the use of common sense when a situation would be the exception to the rule, thus allowing them to improve the

174:

other people's contributions to the page: Like some say a picture is worth a thousand words, looking at the actions of a seasoned and respected contributor can tell you just as much about the process (although I would most definitely not rely on this

362:

No, I think the IP was correct, and that Merriam-Webster is known for not using the IPA in their pronunciation guide, as is uncommon (non-usage) among American dictionaries. If you want to quote IPA to users you can find it in the Oxford English

3111:. I remember your old RfA going down, Foxy, and I must admit it was a shame for it to do so in such fashion. Happily, people are finally aligning themselves for the proper reasons now. I'd like to offer you my backing, as I think you'd make an 1332:

unauthorized use of the mark in relation to products or services which are identical or "colourfully" similar to the "registered" products or services, and in certain cases, prevent use in relation to entirely dissimilar products or services

1215:

feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use

1908:. I see a lot of improvement, and I've read through the opposes from the aborted first RfA and the full second RfA, and don't see anything now in the candidate that's relevant to those opposes ... I could be wrong, of course. - Dan 3624:

No comment on the repeat nominations, but more content contributions? I have pretty high standards for content contributions as well, but a GA going for FA and another GA are fine in my book. Just curious where you draw the line. —

508:

Simply, there is none. Knowledge (XXG) is like a puzzle, all the different types of editors fit together to form the whole picture that is The 💕. The editors produce the content; the vandal fighters keep it free of vandalism; the

358:

on their website and concluded that IPA and MW appeared similar, if not identical (coupled with that fact that I'm pretty sure seeing a mention of IPA pronunciations on their website). So yes, I did examine what the IP was saying.

4241:. If the question had given an example then I'd probably agree with you, but it didn't, and saying the average person is married is not something likely to bring a horde of lawsuits to our door. I can find people who would be 3900:

And in practically all your opposes, there's mention of cases of where the candidate disagreed with your stance somewhere, whether on AfDs, RfAs, or whatever. You're also getting away from the point of how grossly unfair

1346:, is that a trademark is a symbol used to identify a company and provide a basic guarantee saying "hey, it's got our stamp on it, you can trust it". A trademark agreement can only be violated if the trademark is used 3706:

It's not about disagreement; it's about judgment. And in this case the judgment is remarkably disappointing; however, in perhaps a day or two I may revisit this one as I believe in keeping an open-mind. Sincerely,

4493:

I think you may be a well-meaning editor, but based upon these and other comments above (and other concerns from your edit history, among other things), I don't think that you're ready for adminship at this time. -

4070:

I've been good friends with FoxLox for a while, but I'm going to have to oppose this. From what I see, they is still a little immature at times, and I would prefer to see a little more time before I can support.

2271:{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {r}}{\mathfrak {b}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {y}}} 340:

you examine what the IP was saying, or did you simply go forward with "wikipedia uses IPA and my pronunciation is sourced" without making sure that your pronunciation was IPA as you were demanding of the IP? --

2743:, that's good enough for me. (And to the admins opposing, could you solve a dispute like that? If the answer is Yes, then my question to you is, why are you here opposing when you could be solving disputes. 949:

I believe that leaving both pronunciations in the article was reasonable as IPA pronunciations are not the most critical thing requiring sourcing and while it currently remains in the article unsourced, our

1207:, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of 1188:. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets 4473:

And the "context" of the enboldened text should be only as much as if it were not enboldened. That is, as merely adjectory (descriptive) to their comments - which you (sort of) are trying to express.

4156:

content is enough to pass that threshold in practically all circumstances. Also, I'm curious about the need for involvement in policy discussions. Foxy Loxy does have a fair bit of participation at

2618:

I have a concern that the editor seems a little eager to find reasons to delete, but he also seems to learn from mistakes and have a good grasp of policy. I'm sure he will prove a good contributor.

686:

After repeated re-creation and deletion), persistent page-move vandalism is to be prevented, there are page-name disputes and when the page as no reason to be moved (like the village pumps, etc).

1367:

suggests that graphic logos, something that many trademarks are, should be used only once in an article). Finally, the general disclaimer for trademarks (not necessarily images) can be found at

3716:

Oh, come on! It's not as though Foxy Loxy has supported a vandal, troll, or rank newbie. Kww's RfA is tracking at about two thirds support; backing such a candidate is not at all unreasonable.

3664:. One one hand, Foxy Loxy has seven good arguments versus three weak in the AfDs in which we participated, so more “right” than not. Yet, the candidate has weak judgment of character as seen 3687:

I am opposing the candidate because he has demonstrated poor judgment that could influence having a potentially disastrous admin by not being convinced by overwhelming evidence. Sincerely, --

492:

the BLP problem is becoming unmanageable, and this would prevent that. I'm not aware of any other variant, besides full Flagged Revisions on all articles, which I would oppose as unmanageable.

819:

User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

2739:. But mainly, my support is for the fact you're a mediator, a good one at that, and too few admins are any good at solving disputes. Maturity issues? Pah. If you can solve a dispute like 2539:

and he has shown good judgement and general clue. I have read the opposes, but based on my own interactions with Foxy Loxy, I haven't seen enough to cast a different opinion. Good luck,

470:

I must disclose, before I answer this question, that I have no strong views on the BLP issue and I generally stay away from articles involving people. This isn't a conscience choice; my

156:, where I review, comment on and close cases. I would really benefit from the tools in this area because currently, to close nearly every case, I need to flag down a fellow clerk in our 332:

With such conflicts, I believe I dealt with it in a reasonable way (possibly not the best way, but, I believe it is still acceptable) and will strive to remain calm, civil and kind (

152:

As an administrator, I would most likely have a focus on areas in which I am experienced and enjoy; currently the area that I believe fits that criteria the most is my clerk work at

139:

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

3972: 320: 4483:"Consensus is very hard to define, but it can be seen as when a majority (or super-majority in some cases) of individuals with winning arguments come to a decision on something." 1194:"...how Knowledge (XXG) continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." 3485: 4791: 3812:

The issue is that your criteria is grossly unfair. You might not believe it, but the five people almost immediately jumping on your oppose indicate that. As DGG noted in your

614:

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with

3077:

On balance, I'd say this candidate will be a net positive. More to the point, is saying "on balance" and then saying "net positive" a grievous sin against the language? :)

1113:

athletic team or running a small business. The contentions are usually about the details. Of course, if one wishes to delete an article anything can be called contentious.

165:

believe I would focus on SPI (and oh-my they do get a backlog sometimes) but when I think it is perhaps time for a new addition to my administrating arsenal, I would browse

1155:

Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

4419:. Other concerns aside, the answer to #11 just sets me to oppose. I strongly oppose any sort of "vote" counting, and/or assessing primarily due to enboldened text, per 1161:

No, I believe that they should be viewed as the same type of consensus, just displayed in a different format. While an XfD as a bulleted structure, the XfD is still a

269:

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?

416:. I had originally added the history section as I though it was useful and relevant, but approximately 4 months ago, a user raised questions regarding its usefulness 2342:. His answers to Q3 and Q4 show good sense and good temperament for the job. I've looked over his past RfAs and contributions, and he seems to have learned a lot. – 90:. Holding back the tide of spam, vandals and sockpuppets isn't his only area of expertise, no; he also has some excellent article-writing experience under his belt. 4432:

I feel I should point out that !Vote means 'Not Vote', because in some programming languages ! is the symbol for negation, for example the phenomenon is documented

2022: 1400: 1395: 3584:

I reread this vote, and the RfA, and took a second look at Foxy Loxy's contribs, and really can't say I don't come off as a dick for opposing. Moving to support.

4282:

preliminary assumption that an IP may have something to offer en.wiki. Whether you get admin or not, please weigh content when assuming editors are vandals. --

991:, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request? 4470:

I understood that ! in !vote meant what it typically does here on wikipedia (a "non-vote"). (And knowing about ! as a "not" clarified a long time before that.)

1390: 1338:

authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished

297:

and a self-worded comment explaining the Knowledge (XXG) system of sourcing and reliable sources and asking the user to please provide a source for the change.

4362:] and I see little or no "real" change. I see someone who is perhaps attempting to say the correct things to gain the tools . His good and valuable work for 4168:. I'm not sure whether policy discussions are as necessary in a prospective administrator as participation in an administrator venue in the projectspace. — 1442: 1072:(so they are removed). Once those assertions are removed to comply with the BLP policy, the article does indeed meet that CSD criteria and can be deleted. 4605:- I think you're a great contributor and your article work is top notch... but... the concerns brought up by Off2riorob and MoP are too strong to ignore. 4809: 4137:

should be noted that Foxy does most of his article work in his userspace. Hopefully this will cause you to reconsider at least that part of your oppose.

4620:

The concerns are not supported by any diffs whatsoever. Surely as an experienced WP editor you can find some? Off2riorob certainly hasn't been able to.

3968: 718:

The page must most definitely and strictly meet one of the speedy deletion criteria. If in doubt or not an exact match, PROD or XfD is the better venue.

2025:- when they relate to personal temperament, things from 6 months ago are surely still current enough, aren't they? Personalities don't change quickly. 925:

Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete

1325:

the purpose of a trademark is to protect words, phrases and logos used in federally regulated commerce to identify the source of goods and/or services

3198:

I have read over the previous RfA's and I feel that the user has made the necessary changes. Very unlikely to delete the mainpage or break the Wiki.

300:

In reply, I was met with an answer that did not answer my original question (where did you get this IPA from?) and just merely rejected my own source

1876: 1317: 961:. Meaning, in this instance, that while sourcing would be advantageous, the pronunciation isn't something likely to be challenged, so it does not 649:(XXG), it is discovered the user is evading previously placed blocks/using sockpuppets or to note previous blocks placed after a user invokes the 200: 3395:

After deep consideration do feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools. Do not see misuse of tools. Great commitment through.

1429: 593:

To be honest, I have no "passionate, fervent, or ideological " about any subject on Knowledge (XXG) (or in real life, for that matter); I like

2956: 1352: 1948:- I disagree with the opposers, and see no reason not to give such a clearly dedicated, knowledgeable and friendly user the mop and bucket. 3496: 2703: 4510:

I know FL only from FL's frequent votes here at RfA (usually Supports). The quality of FL's reasoning in those votes is appallingly low.--

4328:

Browsing through Off2riorob's contributions, talkpage and block log he appears to be a pov-pusher with edit warring tendencies; I'd treat

1472: 3266:. Has certainly made mistakes in the past, but I'm happy that the lessons have been learned, and that the mop will be wielded properly. 1466: 464:? Specifically, do you feel that the current usage of BLP to protect these articles is too strict, too lenient, or just right, and why? 421:

months later, the discussion was revived by a different user, and the first thread starter and another user joined in the conversation (

219:

has too long and irrelevant). In the WP space, I would say that my best contributions are those relating to my current participation at

4479:

That said, the text of your answer to the question illustrates rather clearly that your perspective is one of democratic vote-counting.

3813: 33: 17: 4739: 4450:

essay. This is why, in many cases, I think we have to look at the bolded !vote; to gain context not consensus, despite that fact that

3799: 2744: 1817:

I supported last October because I thought you were ready and could be trusted with the tools; I see no reason not to support again

1436: 3696:

So, making a good faith !vote that you happen to disagree with is now grounds for legitimate RFA opposition. Very disappointing.

327:. After reflecting on my decision to report the IP, I decided to simply compromise and let both pronunciations stay in the article. 1363:) we can use it without any sort of fair use rationale, provided we only use it for commentary (although, it should be noted, the 3400: 2858:, agree with many of the comments by supporters above that this user has shown some significant positive improvements over time. 597:, but I'm not going to get into any arguments over the stuff I edit. But yes, I would keep the tools away from areas that I edit. 319:

and I then decided (after reflection about the best course of action, as I did not want to revert the user again) report them to

1542: 1008:

Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

485:

Do you support any form of controls on editing, such as Flagged Protection, Flagged Revisions, or any variant? Why, or why not?

1505: 1422: 605: 553: 443: 166: 86:, an area that could certainly use more administrators, and also has experience with other administrator-centric areas such as 79: 4049:

and found that it is another shortcut to there, which I had not noticed before. He has gone well beyond the pale here. G'day,

3736:

Hey now, he voted Support on me and Drilnoth, so if that makes him a weak judge of character, what does that say about me? ;)

1368: 4299:

This editor has shown poor judgement and failed to assume good faith which will only worsen with the extra power, not ready.(

2062: 2011: 1758: 1663: 426: 212: 4245:

by accusing them of being redheads, it doesn't mean such info should result in cries of OMG BLP VIOLATION, WE WILL BE SUED.

1480: 4673:

Thank you . Sorry to be a bit picky but when I am being harangued for opposing I felt it better to keep it clear. regards (

2128:

Clearly needs the tools, every interaction I have had with him has given me the impression that he is a reasonable editor.

524:

If a user has a strong personal opinion or belief on something--politics, religion, anything--should you be able to detect

1547: 3600:

Per maturity and judgement concerns brought up before. These kinds of problems don't magically go away in a few months.

1348:

in relation to products or services which are identical or "colourfully" similar to the "registered" products or services

240: 3538: 2115: 4592: 4557: 3396: 1868: 1824: 2073:

There's nothing about personal temperament there, just a load of fussing about restarting an RFA. Six months ago is

890:

For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

251:). In the past I have also assisted in the mediation of several disputes (the longest running of which regarded the 4515: 3181:

On balance, support arguments convince me more than oppose arguments. No specific-enough reasons given to oppose.--

2782: 1762: 985: 4751:

Drifting between Neutral and Oppose, but I have to side with the issues brought up by MoP and Collectonian above.

1359:

to be used for purposes of criticism and commentary, so provided that the trademark is un-copyrightable (e.g. the

615: 309:

regarding this reversion, reiterating my original request and asking the IP to stop. The IP then reverted me again

3380: 2360: 1315:

trademarks protect any symbol that indicates the source or origin of the goods or services to which it is affixed

4015: 3061:

Experienced enough, although it's a little concerning that only 30% of your edits are on the article mainspace.

4265: 4228: 3589: 3579: 2824: 2698: 2606: 2378: 1588:

I'm trying to answer the questions, and am sorry for the slowness but I am on my phone, so it's taking a while.

3967:

Certainly not were it an isolated incident; it's not, it's part of a pattern with a history. I just suggested

1036:

some people judge others on what religion they are and can attach negative connotations to certain religions.

4733: 3534: 3186: 3020: 2412: 2327: 2279: 1804: 1766: 1360: 1200: 2536: 4576: 4541: 4433: 4416: 3123: 2722:

of content contributions I'm looking for, I'm satisfied with the quality content that has been created. —

2550: 2452: 1860: 1847: 1819: 1787:

You had a rocky start here with your original RfAs. All seems to have worked out well though - good luck

1527: 422: 417: 277: 4046: 3494:

and has proven that he will be able to manage the buttons responsibly and to the benefit to the project.

1364: 768: 276:

Yes I have indeed been in conflicts in the past. Most recently, I was in an argument/minor edit war with

4776: 4757: 4743: 4714: 4682: 4668: 4651: 4629: 4615: 4597: 4562: 4534: 4519: 4511: 4498: 4465: 4427: 4395: 4375: 4346: 4323: 4308: 4291: 4269: 4254: 4232: 4214: 4193: 4176: 4150: 4131: 4109: 4086: 4053: 4040: 4022: 3979: 3962: 3941: 3923: 3913: 3895: 3880: 3866: 3824: 3807: 3792: 3779: 3769: 3755: 3745: 3731: 3711: 3700: 3691: 3681: 3672: 3650: 3646: 3633: 3619: 3607: 3593: 3557: 3555: 3542: 3526: 3508: 3465: 3441: 3425: 3404: 3387: 3357: 3336: 3313: 3297: 3292: 3275: 3254: 3238: 3234: 3221: 3204: 3190: 3173: 3148: 3130: 3103: 3086: 3069: 3053: 3049: 3035: 3026: 3001: 2972: 2947: 2928: 2909: 2885: 2869: 2850: 2843: 2828: 2811: 2788: 2763: 2747:. But if the answer is No, ask, why are you opposing? This user has a quality you lack. Consider that.) 2730: 2710: 2682: 2664: 2660: 2647: 2627: 2610: 2593: 2576: 2571: 2557: 2527: 2523: 2510: 2504: 2489: 2468: 2456: 2439: 2416: 2399: 2382: 2365: 2346: 2334: 2300: 2281: 2161: 2137: 2120: 2090: 2068: 2032: 2017: 1983: 1959: 1940: 1917: 1900: 1883: 1849: 1833: 1812: 1796: 1782: 1770: 1737: 1725: 1708: 1689: 1669: 1643: 1617: 1578: 1529: 1245: 1124: 1094: 565: 376: 364: 349: 128: 108: 58: 4790:

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

4727: 4723: 2771: 1501: 354:

Yes, I did consider the point in saying that the Merriam Webster did not use IPA and had a look at the

157: 3449:. I see someone who will benefit the ranks and will work to mitigate problems rather than cause them. 1801:

A pretty good editor with plenty of contributions that are spread throughout the entire wiki. Cheers.

1321:

The purpose of a copyright is to protect works of authorship as fixed in a tangible form of expression

1286:

questions as you deem necessary. I don't expect a quick response as the issue can be quite confusing.

1199:

Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started an article on

291:

of course) replacing my sourced IPA pronunciation. I originally reverted the user, asking for a source

4678: 4647: 4540:

against someone for having opinions that conflict with yours. But again, that's just what I think...

4371: 4314:

Lovely oppose, lovely oppose. Mind providing diffs so it doesn't just look like an unsourced attack?

4304: 4144: 3144: 2968: 2641: 2355: 1896: 1572: 4206: 3891:

Childofmidnight as well who has also argued to delete stuff I thought should be kept. Sincerely, --

981:

A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and

672: 4625: 4530: 4463: 4391: 4342: 4319: 4287: 4261: 4250: 4224: 4210: 4127: 3585: 3575: 3307: 3098: 2959:, and thought he showed judgment and experience there. You can see a list of his SPI comments with 2923: 2821: 2693: 2602: 2589: 2374: 2043: 1992: 1792: 1687: 1639: 1615: 1598: 1416: 973: 559: 449: 372: 345: 126: 104: 73: 4028: 1275: 256: 4366:

are in his contributions to articles (which I would like to see more of.) and his Bot creation. (

4169: 4050: 4019: 3976: 3938: 3906: 3873: 3817: 3785: 3762: 3626: 3450: 3353: 3329: 3182: 3015: 2749: 2723: 2487: 2319: 2170: 2154: 2133: 2052: 2001: 1779: 1754: 1241: 234: 635: 4525:

you can pull up examples from his mainspace contributions that show other lapses in judgement?

880:

I believe I answered roughly the same question in question 5. Let me know if that isn't enough.

4664: 4611: 3420: 3271: 3116: 3082: 2943: 2804: 2735:

Personally, I'd support purely for answering all the questions above (Guys, we aren't playing

2677: 2541: 2448: 2296: 2085: 1840: 1520: 4445: 772: 333: 244: 4438:

viewing the bolded !Vote someone has cast and then weighing the reasoning behind their !vote

3677:

Are you opposing the candidate because he voted in the opposite way to you in another RFA?

3642: 3614: 3604: 3549: 3284: 3230: 3044: 2994: 2837: 2656: 2623: 2566: 2519: 2500: 2110: 2029: 1931: 1913: 1716: 1208: 1070:(this question implies that all the assertions of notability in this biography were as such) 935: 594: 471: 4420: 4165: 4161: 4157: 4011: 3263: 1652: 1051: 1047: 1026: 780: 776: 737: 705: 650: 510: 461: 313: 220: 215:(I started this article after recommendations on the talk page that the history section at 153: 87: 83: 4674: 4643: 4367: 4300: 4138: 3434: 3217: 3140: 3063: 2964: 2635: 1976: 1952: 1892: 1561: 1356: 865: 54: 4451: 2756: 2424:- I supported last time and I have seen nothing since that would make me change my mind. 1189: 1185: 920: 898: 204: 196: 1537: 798: 4752: 4707: 4621: 4526: 4455: 4387: 4338: 4315: 4283: 4246: 4123: 3955: 3724: 3697: 3678: 3229:. Seems a solid candidate, with a good record of article work and sockpuppet tracking. 3199: 3095: 3032: 2918: 2914:

Can't say that I agree about the signature, but I shall have a drab one just this once

2865: 2585: 2465: 2432: 2390: 1788: 1704: 1679: 1635: 1607: 1590: 1412: 547: 437: 368: 341: 118: 100: 69: 951: 4803: 4773: 4189: 4115: 4105: 4036: 4007: 3973:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship#A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA

3920: 3892: 3863: 3804: 3776: 3752: 3741: 3708: 3688: 3669: 3661: 3478: 3373: 3349: 3324: 3249: 3171: 3094:. Level-headed contributions, and solid article work. I have no major concerns here. 2478: 2314: 2148: 2129: 1749: 1656: 1237: 1220: 1193: 1173: 1120: 1090: 402:

Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

208: 91: 355: 4659: 4606: 4079: 3886:

all, if it were just a bunch of yes men that would not be a good thing, it's about

3414: 3267: 3078: 2939: 2879: 2799: 2740: 2736: 2671: 2343: 2291: 2145:

Minor maturity issues do exist, but I get the feeling your still very trustworthy.

2079: 1230: 1212: 392: 252: 224: 207:(if it passes, it would be my first FA), also, I have significantly contributed to 3492: 3344:- no real reason to oppose. The biggest problem shown here is the edit-warring on 3905:

oppose is, your general criteria be damned, as it doesn't seem pertinent here. —

2565:

Won't abuse the tools, IMO, and, in my one experience with him, did good work. --

2077:

current, though of course your definition of "current" probably differs to mine.

1340: 1327: 191:

I would say, currently, my best article contribution to Knowledge (XXG) would be

160:

to perform the blocking for me. This has plenty of issues, as I am in a somewhat

3601: 3517: 2981: 2619: 2408: 2105: 2026: 1926: 1909: 1734: 1699:

seems to be a good contributor and I think they would be a good admin as well.

2836:

I have had positive interactions with this user and nothing to complain about.

1967:, I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would break the encyclopedia. 316:, I decided that instead of reverting the IP again, I would warn them about 3RR 4575:

I'm not completely sure that FL will do the 'right' thing. Sorry again, mate!

3641:

in their ability to handle these situations, which come up often as an admin.

3213: 2894: 1970: 542:, do you mean; should it be obvious that they have a strong personal opinion? 228: 4784:

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

1991:- Unless somebody provides concrete proof of FL's current "maturity issues". 1747:- Excellent SPI clerk, all-around great user, will make a wonderful admin! -- 1046:

If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under

4699: 4495: 4424: 3948: 3717: 2860: 2425: 1700: 609: 3668:

and is not persuaded by overwhelmingly convincing arguments. Sincerely, --

2535:

I don't believe he will abuse the tools. I have dealt with him as a fellow

587:

these topics, and make that binding somehow, such as Administrator Recall?

546:

can tell they're anything but a loyalist to NPOV, and not their pet issue?

1925:

Seems to have improved greatly since the last two, and i see no alarms. --

280:

over the IPA pronunciation in country. The IP in question was continuously

4184: 4100: 4032: 3737: 3366: 3161: 1115: 1085: 3488:

solidified when edit sampling revealed consistent efforts to help others

3348:, and I trust Foxy when he says he will avoid such conflicts in future. 2497:. No problems really. Looks to have improved from last RfA, so why not? 959:, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source 528:

of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user? Why, or why not?

243:) with fresh articles every 3 hours. I also look at all articles listed 4164:, and as far as the projectspace goes, he's obviously well-involved in 4072: 3345: 409: 288: 216: 4794:

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

3484:

demonstrates dedication and a desire to work with the community. My

2718:. Great candidate. Like the SPI work and although you don't have the 247:

and clean up any that I notice needing formatting, linking etc (like

161: 1504:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 624:

Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

408:

A time when consensus didn't go the way I wanted was regarding the

4639: 4444:

No reason not to", we can see the vote is a reference to Ral315's

4119: 3474: 3246:. All-around good editor with whom I've had pleasant encounters. — 192: 95: 3800:

User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR/Archive_21#Of_probable_interest_to_you...

2955:- No concerns. I checked some of this editor's clerk comments at 1083:

think, or do you want to analyze the question al little further?

223:

as a trainee clerk. In other areas, I have helped out in writing

3829:

The overwhelming majority of admin candidates meet my criteria:

796:

vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.

2601:

Changed from oppose. Essentially on the reasoning of Wisdom89.

1838:

Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –

1334: 3516:

Yes, just think things out before pressing the fancy buttons.

185:

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

4454:. I hope this has provided some clarification on my meaning. 3872:

disagrees with you, ergo he or she is bad. Rocket science. —

2354:

Nothing but good interactions with this user. Good luck! —

1265:

does not indicate why its subject is important or significant

502:

What is the most valuable type of editor on Knowledge (XXG)?

115:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

4476:

So yes, you've further expressed what you were saying above.

4027:

Even if everything A Nobody said was true, there would be a

4363: 4697:- the last RFA and a half left me with a uneasy feeling. – 1311:

an idea through any medium of artistic/creative expression

287:

adding an unsourced pronunciation of the word country (on

2464:, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2995: 2982: 2669:

No reasons given not to - six months ago isn't current.

1657: 321:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

146:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

3860: 3857: 3854: 3851: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3839: 3836: 3833: 3830: 3665: 3489: 3482: 2960: 1743: 1487: 1460: 1454: 1448: 1204: 413: 328: 324: 317: 310: 307: 304: 301: 298: 295: 292: 285: 283: 281: 248: 2176: 1355:. On the other hand, trademarks are permitted by the 540:

of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user

1261:

indicate why its subject is important or significant

1655:

the other day, but figured he (she?) already was.--

1651:I thought Foxy should be an admin, when patrolling 336:comes to mind) during such disputes in the future. 4031:violation here at the very least, wouldn't there?— 3481:(more please!). Participation at SPI, CSD and RfA 3473:. I am impressed with the well written/referenced 2877:Seems to understand his limits, good work at SPI. 2270: 2023:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_2 3043:. He'll do well and I wish him luck in this RFA. 2819:A great contributor, and definitely trustworthy. 2361: 2356: 367:half-heartedly deciding your source was okay. -- 4336:I realise there is a shred of hypocrisy in this 771:? And how may it be determined differently on a 330:Those pronunciations are both still there today. 2796:Supported his last RFA, still support him now. 4098:and zero contributions to policy discussions. 3293: 3285: 1479:Edit summary usage for Foxy Loxy can be found 957:Material challenged or likely to be challenged 3969:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/A Nobody 3115:admin if bestowed with the responsibilities. 2104:I don't see any reason he'd abuse the tools. 1369:Knowledge (XXG):General disclaimer#Trademarks 8: 4660: 4607: 4487:And calling comments in a discussion to be 4436:. And in my answer to the question, I said 3031:Huge improvements over the last two times. 2748: 3124: 2745:Go ahead. We need as much help as possible 1054:, would it be proper to speedy delete it? 897:Although if someone could provide me with 53:Final: (83/16/1); closed as successful by 4489:"...the bolded !Vote someone has cast..." 3160:. Significant improvement since October. 2262: 2261: 2255: 2254: 2248: 2247: 2241: 2240: 2234: 2233: 2227: 2226: 2220: 2219: 2213: 2212: 2206: 2205: 2199: 2198: 2192: 2191: 2185: 2184: 2178: 2177: 2175: 1329:. The difference between the two is that 1192:. One of his contacts had written about: 618:, please answer the following questions: 1518:Editing stats posted at the talk page. – 1500:Please keep discussion constructive and 805:admins interpretation of that consensus. 3117: 2584:I can't truly find a reason to oppose. 1388: 844:Why do you wish to be an administrator? 3152:removing my !vote so I can close this. 2042:RfA, unless it hasn't been rectified. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 4182:Changed to Weak Oppose at this point. 7: 4114:Very little article work? Check out 3491:. Foxy has met his own RfA criteria 2477:- Oppose section is unconvincing. — 1733:he has improved since his last RfA. 934:Additional (optional) question from 227:, a PHP scripted bot running on the 4205:Too many administrators currently. 3433:. Seems trustworthy and committed. 2263: 2256: 2249: 2242: 2235: 2228: 2221: 2214: 2207: 2200: 2193: 2186: 2179: 1949: 1386: 514:keeping the project at top quality. 1401:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3 1396:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2 239:template (it's transcluded on the 24: 4810:Successful requests for adminship 3365:- Potential to be a great admin. 1184:Here is a general question about 1391:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 241:Knowledge (XXG):Community portal 2757: 2055: 2045: 2004: 1994: 1953: 1664: 1506:Special:Contributions/Foxy Loxy 167:Category:Administrative backlog 162:"non-US and Britain orientated" 4332:he says with a pinch of salt. 4096:very little article work, and 2805: 2800: 1259:contains enough notability to 427:Political history of the world 213:Political history of the world 199:and is currently undergoing a 1: 4381:Well while I appreciate your 4237:Anyone can be embarrassed by 4094:( changed from Oppose. I see 3013:good experience, no concerns 2518:No problems here. Good luck! 1861: 1205:nominated for speedy deletion 740:to be applied to a situation? 536:should you be able to detect 306:I then posted another message 294:and posted a welcome template 4634:Please quote my whole name 3582:) 13:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3321:. Not a problem in sight. — 2957:WP:Sockpuppet investigations 1877: 1534:For those that prefer them: 1309:specific creative expression 1254:No, I would most definitely 1025:Under your understanding of 913:you give to their argument? 436:Additional questions from — 4665: 4612: 3662:User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards 3547:Very good admin candidate. 1869: 135:Questions for the candidate 4826: 4777:07:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4758:04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 4744:22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 4715:19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 4683:12:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 4669:12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 4652:01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 4630:22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 4616:22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 4598:17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 4563:17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 4535:20:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4520:10:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4499:11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 4466:09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4428:09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4396:20:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4376:13:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4347:08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4324:08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4309:06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4292:04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4270:16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 4255:01:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4233:21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 4215:16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 4194:07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4177:05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4151:00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 4132:00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 4110:23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 4087:20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 4054:06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4041:04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 4023:09:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3980:07:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3963:06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3942:06:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3924:06:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3914:06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3896:06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3881:06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3867:06:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3825:06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3808:05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3793:05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3780:05:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3770:04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3756:16:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3746:05:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3732:04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3712:23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3701:23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3692:22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3682:21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3673:19:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3651:19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3634:04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3620:16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3608:14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3594:17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3558:11:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3543:09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3527:06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3509:03:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3466:02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3442:01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3426:00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3405:16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 3388:14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 3358:04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 3337:01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 3314:21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 3298:16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 3276:09:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 3255:04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 3239:02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 3222:00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 3205:18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3191:17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3174:16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3149:16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3131:15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3104:07:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3087:02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3070:02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3054:01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3036:20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3027:20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 3002:20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2973:16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2948:15:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2929:12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2910:12:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2886:09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2870:09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2851:07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2829:06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2812:04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2789:04:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2764:04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2731:03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2711:03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2683:01:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2665:22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2648:22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2628:19:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2611:17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2594:16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2577:15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2558:08:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2528:03:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2511:00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 2490:23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2469:23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2457:22:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2440:22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2417:21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2400:20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2383:20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2366:19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2347:19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2335:17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2301:17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2282:17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2162:17:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2138:17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2121:16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2091:01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2069:18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2033:18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2018:16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1984:16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1960:15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1941:15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1918:14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1901:14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1884:14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1850:13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1834:13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1813:13:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1797:13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1783:12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1771:12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1738:12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1726:12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1709:12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1690:01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1670:12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1644:12:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1618:14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1579:19:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1530:13:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 1336:while a copyright confers 1246:20:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 1172:Additional questions from 1125:02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 1095:20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 864:Additional questions from 566:05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 534:Not sure what you mean by 377:04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 350:21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 129:12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 109:12:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 59:13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2308:Good luck from me also. 1353:non-free content criteria 312:and, getting wary of the 221:Sockpuppet investigations 154:Sockpuppet investigations 4787:Please do not modify it. 3305:- Looks fine from here. 3262:Shows good judgement at 3139:you've come a long way. 2447:Will make a good admin. 1674:He, just for the record 1560: 1538:WikiChecker edit counter 972:Optional questions from 3616:Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 1307:Copyrights protect the 1274:Optional question from 1201:The Political Quarterly 1050:, if the article meets 767:How does one determine 460:What are your views on 391:Optional question from 303:and was reverted again. 38:Please do not modify it 4353:Hello Ironholds. Your 3397:Pharaoh of the Wizards 2272: 1891:- trustworthy editor. 1548:Wikimedia edit counter 3412:. I trust this user. 2273: 1410:Links for Foxy Loxy: 1342:. What this means, I 117:I gratefully accept. 34:request for adminship 3862:, etc. Sincerely, -- 2174: 952:verifiability policy 158:coordination channel 1385:RfAs for this user: 974:User:Carlossuarez46 634:...an editor to be 3554: 3535:Mikhailov Kusserow 2373:Looks fine to me! 2268: 1845: 1778:No reason not to. 1525: 1508:before commenting. 1080:Follow-up question 779:discussion, and a 255:article) with the 39: 4447:Why the Hell Not? 4337: 4083: 4045:I just looked up 3548: 3507: 3440: 3101: 2998: 2988: 2946: 2575: 2160: 2064: 2059: 2013: 2008: 1982: 1873: 1865: 1839: 1744:Vorpal Support +5 1724: 1668: 1543:X!'s edit counter 1519: 1489:Promote Foxy Loxy 1297:. And here we go: 986:underconstruction 919:According to the 736:...the policy to 704:...a page to be 231:that updates the 37: 4817: 4789: 4755: 4730: 4713: 4710: 4704: 4666: 4662: 4613: 4609: 4590: 4555: 4512:Goodmorningworld 4461: 4458: 4335: 4174: 4147: 4141: 4084: 4081: 4077: 3953: 3911: 3878: 3822: 3790: 3767: 3722: 3631: 3617: 3552: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3462: 3456: 3439: 3437: 3423: 3417: 3384: 3377: 3370: 3332: 3327: 3312: 3310: 3295: 3289: 3202: 3170: 3166: 3128: 3121: 3099: 3066: 3023: 3018: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2986: 2942: 2926: 2921: 2917: 2907: 2882: 2847: 2827: 2809: 2807: 2802: 2785: 2779: 2775: 2762: 2759: 2728: 2706: 2701: 2696: 2680: 2674: 2644: 2638: 2569: 2556: 2553: 2544: 2509: 2485: 2430: 2397: 2363: 2358: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2313: 2299: 2294: 2277: 2275: 2274: 2269: 2267: 2266: 2260: 2259: 2253: 2252: 2246: 2245: 2239: 2238: 2232: 2231: 2225: 2224: 2218: 2217: 2211: 2210: 2204: 2203: 2197: 2196: 2190: 2189: 2183: 2182: 2159: 2157: 2146: 2118: 2113: 2108: 2088: 2082: 2063: 2057: 2053: 2047: 2012: 2006: 2002: 1996: 1981: 1979: 1968: 1958: 1955: 1938: 1929: 1879: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1863: 1843: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1807: 1723: 1721: 1714: 1685: 1682: 1677: 1666: 1662: 1659: 1613: 1610: 1596: 1593: 1575: 1569: 1567: 1564: 1523: 1492: 1490: 1476: 1435: 1381:General comments 1296: 1235: 1229: 1225: 1219: 1209:Benito Mussolini 1071: 1067: 990: 984: 936:User:RegentsPark 738:ignore all rules 706:speedily deleted 671:...a page to be 595:computer science 562: 556: 550: 452: 446: 440: 331: 238: 205:featured article 124: 121: 4825: 4824: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4792:this nomination 4785: 4766: 4753: 4728: 4708: 4700: 4698: 4638:or link to my 4595: 4594:Call me MoP! :D 4577: 4560: 4559:Call me MoP! :D 4542: 4459: 4456: 4170: 4145: 4139: 4082:clamation point 4080: 4073: 3959: 3949: 3907: 3874: 3818: 3786: 3763: 3728: 3718: 3627: 3615: 3566: 3550: 3503: 3500: 3497: 3460: 3454: 3435: 3421: 3415: 3382: 3375: 3368: 3330: 3325: 3308: 3306: 3200: 3168: 3162: 3064: 3021: 3016: 2991: 2940:Camaron | Chris 2924: 2919: 2915: 2895: 2880: 2845: 2820: 2798: 2783: 2777: 2773: 2761: 2724: 2704: 2699: 2694: 2678: 2672: 2642: 2636: 2551: 2542: 2540: 2498: 2479: 2436: 2426: 2391: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2311: 2309: 2295: 2290: 2172: 2171: 2155: 2147: 2116: 2111: 2106: 2086: 2080: 2067: 2058: 2016: 2007: 1977: 1969: 1932: 1927: 1841: 1829: 1825: 1820: 1805: 1717: 1715: 1683: 1680: 1675: 1628: 1611: 1608: 1594: 1591: 1577: 1573: 1565: 1562: 1521: 1515: 1488: 1486: 1428: 1411: 1407: 1405: 1383: 1357:First Amendment 1294: 1233: 1227: 1223: 1217: 1069: 1065: 988: 982: 921:deletion policy 775:discussion, an 560: 554: 548: 450: 444: 438: 414:History section 275: 257:mediation cabal 232: 137: 122: 119: 67: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4823: 4821: 4813: 4812: 4802: 4801: 4797: 4796: 4780: 4779: 4765: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4746: 4717: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4632: 4600: 4593: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4558: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4491: 4485: 4480: 4477: 4474: 4471: 4452:Polls are evil 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4294: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4262:Carlossuarez46 4225:Carlossuarez46 4217: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4153: 4134: 4089: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3957: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3726: 3675: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3610: 3597: 3596: 3586:Hiberniantears 3576:Hiberniantears 3565: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3545: 3529: 3524: 3511: 3486:humble opinion 3468: 3444: 3428: 3407: 3390: 3360: 3339: 3316: 3300: 3278: 3257: 3241: 3224: 3207: 3193: 3176: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3106: 3089: 3072: 3056: 3038: 3029: 3004: 2975: 2950: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2888: 2872: 2853: 2831: 2822:Steven Walling 2814: 2791: 2766: 2755: 2733: 2713: 2685: 2667: 2650: 2630: 2613: 2603:Hiberniantears 2596: 2579: 2560: 2530: 2513: 2492: 2472: 2459: 2442: 2434: 2419: 2402: 2388:Strong support 2385: 2375:ErikTheBikeMan 2368: 2349: 2337: 2303: 2284: 2265: 2258: 2251: 2244: 2237: 2230: 2223: 2216: 2209: 2202: 2195: 2188: 2181: 2164: 2140: 2123: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2054: 2050: 2003: 1999: 1986: 1962: 1943: 1920: 1903: 1886: 1852: 1836: 1815: 1799: 1785: 1780:Meetare Shappy 1773: 1740: 1728: 1711: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1646: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1601: 1600: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1571: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1545: 1540: 1532: 1514: 1511: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1493: 1484: 1477: 1406: 1404: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1379: 1377: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1361:Coca-Cola logo 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1280: 1278: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1148: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 976: 969: 968: 967: 966: 938: 931: 930: 929: 928: 906: 905: 904: 903: 884: 883: 882: 881: 868: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 846: 845: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 821: 820: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 785: 784: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 742: 741: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 710: 709: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 677: 676: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 640: 639: 626: 625: 612: 601: 600: 599: 598: 580: 579: 578: 577: 570: 569: 568: 532:Clarification: 518: 517: 516: 515: 496: 495: 494: 493: 479: 478: 477: 476: 455: 433: 432: 431: 430: 397: 395: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 323:, which I did 263: 262: 261: 260: 179: 178: 177: 176: 136: 133: 132: 131: 66: 63: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4822: 4811: 4808: 4807: 4805: 4795: 4793: 4788: 4782: 4781: 4778: 4775: 4771: 4768: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4756: 4750: 4747: 4745: 4741: 4738: 4735: 4731: 4725: 4721: 4718: 4716: 4711: 4705: 4703: 4696: 4693: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4667: 4663: 4656: 4655: 4653: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4614: 4610: 4604: 4601: 4599: 4596: 4591: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4573: 4570: 4564: 4561: 4556: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4506: 4500: 4497: 4492: 4490: 4486: 4484: 4481: 4478: 4475: 4472: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4464: 4462: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4434:on Wiktionary 4431: 4430: 4429: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4411: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4384: 4380: 4379: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4334: 4333: 4331: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4312: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4295: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4280: 4277: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4221: 4218: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4201: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4175: 4173: 4172:sephiroth bcr 4167: 4163: 4159: 4154: 4152: 4149: 4148: 4142: 4135: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4097: 4093: 4090: 4088: 4085: 4078: 4076: 4069: 4055: 4052: 4051:Jack Merridew 4048: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4021: 4020:Jack Merridew 4017: 4013: 4009: 4005: 3981: 3978: 3977:Jack Merridew 3975:. Sincerely, 3974: 3970: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3961: 3960: 3954: 3952: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3940: 3939:Jack Merridew 3935: 3925: 3922: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3912: 3910: 3909:sephiroth bcr 3904: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3894: 3889: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3879: 3877: 3876:sephiroth bcr 3870: 3869: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3858: 3855: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3834: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3823: 3821: 3820:sephiroth bcr 3815: 3814:editor review 3811: 3810: 3809: 3806: 3801: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3791: 3789: 3788:sephiroth bcr 3783: 3782: 3781: 3778: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3768: 3766: 3765:sephiroth bcr 3759: 3758: 3757: 3754: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3730: 3729: 3723: 3721: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3710: 3705: 3704: 3702: 3699: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3690: 3686: 3685: 3683: 3680: 3676: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3639: 3635: 3632: 3630: 3629:sephiroth bcr 3623: 3622: 3621: 3618: 3611: 3609: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3598: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3581: 3577: 3572: 3568: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3556: 3553: 3546: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3533: 3530: 3528: 3525: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3506: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3483: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3469: 3467: 3464: 3463: 3457: 3448: 3445: 3443: 3438: 3432: 3429: 3427: 3424: 3419: 3418: 3411: 3408: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3391: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3379: 3378: 3372: 3371: 3364: 3361: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3340: 3338: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3328: 3320: 3317: 3315: 3311: 3304: 3301: 3299: 3296: 3290: 3288: 3282: 3279: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3258: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3245: 3242: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3197: 3194: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3183:SarekOfVulcan 3180: 3177: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3165: 3159: 3156: 3151: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3129: 3127: 3122: 3120: 3114: 3110: 3107: 3105: 3102: 3097: 3093: 3090: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3073: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3060: 3057: 3055: 3052: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3042: 3039: 3037: 3034: 3030: 3028: 3025: 3024: 3019: 3012: 3008: 3005: 3003: 3000: 2990: 2985: 2980:Certainly. — 2979: 2976: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2927: 2922: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2892: 2889: 2887: 2884: 2883: 2876: 2873: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2849: 2848: 2841: 2840: 2835: 2832: 2830: 2826: 2823: 2818: 2815: 2813: 2810: 2808: 2803: 2795: 2792: 2790: 2786: 2780: 2776: 2770: 2767: 2765: 2760: 2754: 2751: 2750:Steve Crossin 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2732: 2729: 2727: 2726:sephiroth bcr 2721: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2702: 2697: 2689: 2686: 2684: 2681: 2676: 2675: 2668: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2646: 2645: 2639: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2597: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2580: 2578: 2573: 2572:My narrowboat 2568: 2564: 2561: 2559: 2554: 2548: 2547: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2512: 2508: 2506: 2502: 2496: 2493: 2491: 2488: 2486: 2484: 2483: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2431: 2429: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2403: 2401: 2398: 2396: 2395: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2364: 2359: 2353: 2350: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2338: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2323: 2318: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2285: 2283: 2280: 2278: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2158: 2152: 2151: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2109: 2103: 2100: 2092: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2065: 2060: 2049: 2048: 2041: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2014: 2009: 1998: 1997: 1990: 1987: 1985: 1980: 1974: 1973: 1966: 1963: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1939: 1937: 1936: 1930: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1887: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1875: 1867: 1857:Looks great. 1856: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1837: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1823: 1816: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1808: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1739: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1722: 1720: 1712: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1686: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1660: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1619: 1616: 1614: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1589: 1586: 1585: 1580: 1576: 1570: 1568: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1541: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1533: 1531: 1528: 1524: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1510: 1509: 1507: 1503: 1494: 1491: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1408: 1402: 1399: 1397: 1394: 1392: 1389: 1380: 1378: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1232: 1222: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1175: 1174:User:Geo Swan 1164: 1160: 1157: 1156: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1087: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1064: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1020: 1013: 1010: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1003: 996: 993: 992: 987: 980: 977: 975: 971: 970: 964: 960: 958: 953: 948: 945: 944: 942: 939: 937: 933: 932: 926: 922: 918: 915: 914: 911: 908: 907: 900: 895: 892: 891: 889: 886: 885: 879: 876: 875: 872: 869: 867: 863: 862: 853: 850: 849: 848: 847: 843: 840: 839: 838: 837: 828: 825: 824: 823: 822: 818: 815: 814: 813: 812: 803: 799: 797: 793:Consensus is 792: 789: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 763: 762: 761: 760: 751:encyclopedia. 749: 746: 745: 744: 743: 739: 735: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 717: 714: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 684: 681: 680: 679: 678: 674: 670: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 652: 647: 644: 643: 642: 641: 637: 633: 630: 629: 628: 627: 623: 620: 619: 617: 613: 611: 607: 603: 602: 596: 592: 589: 588: 585: 582: 581: 574: 571: 567: 563: 557: 551: 544: 543: 541: 539: 533: 530: 529: 527: 523: 520: 519: 512: 507: 504: 503: 501: 498: 497: 490: 487: 486: 484: 481: 480: 473: 469: 466: 465: 463: 459: 456: 453: 447: 441: 435: 434: 428: 424: 419: 415: 411: 407: 404: 403: 401: 398: 396: 394: 390: 389: 378: 374: 370: 365: 361: 360: 357: 353: 352: 351: 347: 343: 338: 337: 335: 329: 326: 322: 318: 315: 311: 308: 305: 302: 299: 296: 293: 290: 286: 284: 282: 279: 274: 271: 270: 268: 265: 264: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 236: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 209:BootX (Apple) 206: 202: 198: 195:. Xgrid is a 194: 190: 187: 186: 184: 181: 180: 173: 168: 163: 159: 155: 151: 148: 147: 145: 142: 141: 140: 134: 130: 127: 125: 116: 113: 112: 111: 110: 106: 102: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 78: 75: 71: 64: 62: 61: 60: 56: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4786: 4783: 4769: 4748: 4736: 4729:Collectonian 4719: 4701: 4694: 4635: 4602: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4571: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4507: 4488: 4482: 4446: 4441: 4437: 4412: 4382: 4354: 4329: 4296: 4278: 4242: 4238: 4219: 4202: 4183: 4171: 4143: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4074: 4047:WP:HYPOCRISY 4016:Battleground 3956: 3950: 3908: 3902: 3887: 3875: 3819: 3787: 3764: 3725: 3719: 3656: 3655: 3628: 3570: 3569: 3531: 3520: 3519: 3513: 3498:--Preceding 3470: 3458: 3452: 3446: 3430: 3413: 3409: 3392: 3381: 3374: 3367: 3362: 3341: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3302: 3286: 3280: 3259: 3248: 3247: 3243: 3226: 3209: 3195: 3178: 3163: 3157: 3136: 3135: 3125: 3118: 3112: 3108: 3091: 3074: 3062: 3058: 3050: 3045: 3040: 3014: 3010: 3006: 2983: 2977: 2952: 2935: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2890: 2878: 2874: 2859: 2855: 2844: 2838: 2833: 2816: 2797: 2793: 2772: 2768: 2752: 2741:Bates method 2737:20 Questions 2725: 2719: 2715: 2695:bibliomaniac 2692: 2691: 2687: 2670: 2652: 2640: 2632: 2615: 2598: 2581: 2562: 2545: 2532: 2515: 2499: 2494: 2481: 2480: 2474: 2461: 2449:TonyBallioni 2444: 2433: 2427: 2421: 2407:on balance. 2404: 2393: 2392: 2387: 2370: 2351: 2339: 2310: 2305: 2286: 2166: 2149: 2142: 2125: 2101: 2078: 2074: 2044: 2039: 1993: 1988: 1971: 1964: 1950: 1945: 1934: 1933: 1922: 1914:push to talk 1905: 1888: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1842:Juliancolton 1818: 1803: 1802: 1775: 1748: 1742: 1730: 1718: 1696: 1648: 1631: 1587: 1559: 1522:Juliancolton 1499: 1498: 1469: 1463: 1457: 1451: 1445: 1439: 1432: 1425: 1419: 1376: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1330: 1324: 1320: 1314: 1308: 1306: 1289: 1282: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1213:Leon Trotsky 1198: 1195: 1181: 1171: 1170: 1162: 1158: 1152: 1147: 1114: 1099: 1084: 1079: 1062: 1057: 1043: 1032: 1022: 1011: 1005: 994: 978: 962: 956: 955: 946: 940: 924: 916: 909: 893: 887: 877: 870: 851: 841: 826: 816: 801: 794: 790: 764: 747: 733: 715: 701: 682: 668: 645: 631: 621: 590: 583: 572: 537: 535: 531: 525: 521: 505: 499: 488: 482: 467: 457: 405: 399: 356:Pronun Guide 278:130.49.58.34 272: 266: 253:Bates method 203:to become a 197:good article 188: 182: 171: 149: 143: 138: 114: 76: 68: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 4749:Weak Oppose 4722:- fails my 4695:Weak oppose 4642:Thank you ( 4417:my criteria 4220:Weak oppose 4092:WEAK Oppose 3657:Weak oppose 3643:Ottava Rima 3551:Pmlinediter 3046:OhanaUnited 2961:this search 2774:Master& 2657:AdjustShift 2567:RegentsPark 2520:Pastor Theo 2501:Malinaccier 1068:assertions 1066:contentious 783:discussion. 363:Dictionary. 201:peer review 4675:Off2riorob 4644:Off2riorob 4640:User page. 4636:Off2riorob 4368:Off2riorob 4301:Off2riorob 3436:SlimVirgin 3309:Channel R 3141:Kingturtle 3065:Aaroncrick 2997:discussion 2965:EdJohnston 2362:Wartenberg 2289:Why not? - 2169:Good Luck 1893:PhilKnight 1606:All done. 1513:Discussion 1236:instead? 1163:discussion 866:Jennavecia 412:article's 229:toolserver 175:entirely). 65:Nomination 55:Kingturtle 31:successful 4622:Ironholds 4527:Ironholds 4388:Ironholds 4383:criticism 4339:Ironholds 4316:Ironholds 4284:KP Botany 4247:Ironholds 4239:something 4207:DougsTech 4124:Ironholds 4029:WP:KETTLE 4018:. Jeers, 4012:Bad Faith 3947:offence. 3698:Lankiveil 3679:Lankiveil 3201:Trusilver 3113:excellent 3096:Sjakkalle 3033:Acalamari 3011:IRC cabal 2586:America69 2537:SPI clerk 2466:Lankiveil 2394:Wizardman 1789:Fritzpoll 1636:Ironholds 1455:block log 1413:Foxy Loxy 1203:. It was 1052:WP:CSD#A7 965:sourcing. 773:talk page 769:consensus 673:protected 616:adminship 606:questions 604:Optional 549:rootology 472:interests 439:rootology 369:KP Botany 342:KP Botany 235:opentasks 101:Ironholds 70:Foxy Loxy 47:Foxy Loxy 4804:Category 4774:A Nobody 4740:contribs 4724:criteria 4330:anything 4243:incensed 4008:A Nobody 3921:A Nobody 3893:A Nobody 3864:A Nobody 3805:A Nobody 3777:A Nobody 3753:A Nobody 3709:A Nobody 3689:A Nobody 3670:A Nobody 3501:unsigned 3350:Robofish 3250:Eustress 3100:(Check!) 2150:iMatthew 2130:Wronkiew 2046:Wisdom89 1995:Wisdom89 1830:Chequers 1658:Giants27 1634:as nom. 1563:ωαdεstεr 1423:contribs 1323:, while 1313:, while 1238:Geo Swan 80:contribs 4770:Neutral 4764:Neutral 4661:Scarian 4608:Scarian 4442:Support 3532:Support 3514:Support 3504:comment 3471:Support 3447:Support 3431:Support 3410:Support 3393:Support 3363:Support 3346:Country 3342:Support 3331:xplicit 3319:Support 3303:Support 3281:Support 3268:Mayalld 3260:Support 3244:Support 3227:Support 3210:Support 3196:Support 3179:Support 3158:Support 3137:support 3109:Support 3092:Support 3079:Protonk 3075:Support 3059:Support 3041:Support 3022:Toaster 3007:Support 2978:Support 2953:Support 2936:Support 2891:Support 2881:MBisanz 2875:Support 2856:Support 2834:Support 2817:Support 2801:Marlith 2794:Support 2716:Support 2688:Support 2673:Majorly 2655:- Yep! 2653:Support 2633:Support 2616:Support 2599:Support 2582:Support 2563:Support 2546:Symonds 2533:Support 2516:Support 2495:Support 2475:Support 2462:Support 2445:Support 2422:Support 2405:Support 2371:Support 2352:Support 2344:Quadell 2340:Support 2306:Support 2292:Fastily 2287:Support 2167:Support 2143:Support 2126:Support 2102:Support 2081:Majorly 1989:Support 1965:Support 1946:Support 1923:Support 1906:Support 1889:Support 1872:OUNTAIN 1855:Support 1776:Support 1731:Support 1697:Support 1649:Support 1632:Support 1626:Support 1430:deleted 1276:BQZip01 963:require 954:states 636:blocked 576:manner. 410:Country 393:Quadell 334:WP:BITE 289:Country 225:LoxyBot 217:Country 4720:Oppose 4603:Oppose 4589:uppets 4581:aster 4572:Oppose 4554:uppets 4546:aster 4508:Oppose 4421:WP:CON 4415:- per 4413:Oppose 4360:] and 4355:strong 4297:Oppose 4279:Oppose 4203:Oppose 4166:WP:SPI 4162:WP:VPT 4158:WP:VPR 3605:(talk) 3602:Friday 3571:Oppose 3564:Oppose 3264:WP:SPI 3231:Nevard 3119:Ayrton 3017:Flying 2944:(talk) 2839:Valley 2825:(talk) 2806:(Talk) 2778:Expert 2720:number 2620:Dean B 2409:Stifle 2297:(talk) 2030:(talk) 2027:Friday 1910:Dank55 1735:GT5162 1719:GARDEN 1713:Sure. 1653:WP:SPI 1048:WP:BLP 1027:WP:BLP 902:admin. 462:WP:BLP 88:WP:CSD 84:WP:SPI 4146:Cobra 4140:Glass 4120:Xgrid 4116:BootX 3479:Bootx 3475:Xgrid 3214:Cool3 3126:Prost 2987:itias 2643:Cobra 2637:Glass 2543:Peter 2329:sign! 2156:Chat 1978:Talk 1972:Tavix 1954:neuro 1864:ITTLE 1826:Spiel 1750:Dylan 1574:«talk 1502:civil 1437:count 1344:think 1190:WP:A7 1186:WP:A7 802:!Vote 608:from 193:Xgrid 96:Xgrid 92:BootX 16:< 4734:talk 4709:talk 4702:xeno 4679:talk 4648:talk 4626:talk 4531:talk 4516:talk 4496:jc37 4460:Loxy 4457:Foxy 4425:jc37 4423:. - 4392:talk 4372:talk 4343:talk 4320:talk 4305:talk 4288:talk 4266:talk 4251:talk 4229:talk 4211:talk 4190:talk 4160:and 4128:talk 4118:and 4106:talk 4037:talk 4014:and 3951:Reyk 3903:this 3742:talk 3720:Reyk 3666:here 3660:per 3647:talk 3590:talk 3580:talk 3539:talk 3477:and 3453:Banj 3422:ergy 3401:talk 3354:talk 3272:talk 3235:talk 3218:talk 3187:talk 3145:talk 3083:talk 3009:per 2969:talk 2925:Loxy 2920:Foxy 2866:talk 2861:Cirt 2846:city 2784:Talk 2679:talk 2661:talk 2624:talk 2607:talk 2590:talk 2552:talk 2524:talk 2505:talk 2453:talk 2428:Reyk 2413:talk 2379:talk 2357:Jake 2321:load 2316:down 2134:talk 2087:talk 2040:last 1897:talk 1821:Ϣere 1793:talk 1767:sign 1763:ping 1759:work 1755:chat 1705:talk 1701:Camw 1684:Loxy 1681:Foxy 1640:talk 1612:Loxy 1609:Foxy 1595:Loxy 1592:Foxy 1481:here 1467:rfar 1449:logs 1417:talk 1242:talk 1221:prod 1153:16e. 1121:talk 1091:talk 1063:such 1044:16d. 1023:16c. 1015:16a. 1006:16b. 979:16a. 910:14c. 888:14b. 871:14a. 734:10d. 702:10c. 669:10b. 632:10a. 610:jc37 423:here 418:here 373:talk 346:talk 325:here 249:this 245:here 211:and 123:Loxy 120:Foxy 105:talk 94:and 74:talk 4185:DGG 4101:DGG 4033:Kww 4006:re 3958:YO! 3888:how 3738:BOZ 3727:YO! 3521:Nja 3451:-- 3416:Syn 3291:| 3287:Tan 3164:Axl 2769:^.^ 2435:YO! 2112:meh 2107:Tim 2075:not 1928:Ged 1473:spi 1443:AfD 1365:MoS 1283:18. 1256:not 1231:afd 1226:or 1211:or 1182:17. 1116:DGG 1086:DGG 842:13. 817:12. 781:DRV 777:XfD 765:11. 651:RTV 622:10. 538:any 526:any 511:SPI 314:3RR 172:and 57:at 4806:: 4742:) 4681:) 4654:) 4650:) 4628:) 4585:f 4550:f 4533:) 4518:) 4394:) 4378:) 4374:) 4364:WP 4345:) 4322:) 4311:) 4307:) 4290:) 4268:) 4253:) 4231:) 4213:) 4192:) 4130:) 4122:. 4108:) 4039:) 4010:; 3859:, 3856:, 3853:, 3850:, 3847:, 3844:, 3841:, 3838:, 3835:, 3832:, 3744:) 3707:-- 3703:. 3684:. 3649:) 3613:-- 3592:) 3541:) 3461:oi 3403:) 3356:) 3294:39 3274:) 3237:) 3220:) 3189:) 3147:) 3085:) 2992:// 2971:) 2916:;) 2868:) 2787:) 2758:24 2690:. 2663:) 2626:) 2609:) 2592:) 2526:) 2455:) 2415:) 2381:) 2153:: 2136:) 2061:/ 2010:/ 1975:| 1951:— 1935:UK 1916:) 1899:) 1846:| 1795:) 1769:) 1765:, 1761:, 1757:, 1707:) 1678:. 1676::) 1642:) 1566:16 1558:~ 1526:| 1461:lu 1319:. 1295::) 1290:A: 1252:A. 1244:) 1234:}} 1228:{{ 1224:}} 1218:{{ 1159:A: 1123:) 1100:A. 1093:) 1058:A: 1033:A: 1012:A: 995:A: 989:}} 983:{{ 947:A. 941:15 923:, 917:A: 899:RS 894:A: 878:A: 852:A: 827:A: 791:A: 748:A: 716:A: 683:A: 646:A: 591:A: 584:9. 573:A: 564:) 558:)( 522:8. 506:A: 500:7. 489:A: 483:6. 468:A: 458:5. 448:)( 406:A. 400:4. 375:) 348:) 273:A: 267:3. 237:}} 233:{{ 189:A: 183:2. 150:A: 144:1. 107:) 36:. 4754:Q 4737:· 4732:( 4712:) 4706:( 4685:) 4677:( 4646:( 4624:( 4587:P 4583:o 4579:M 4552:P 4548:o 4544:M 4529:( 4514:( 4390:( 4370:( 4341:( 4318:( 4303:( 4286:( 4264:( 4249:( 4227:( 4209:( 4188:( 4126:( 4104:( 4075:X 4035:( 3971:@ 3740:( 3645:( 3588:( 3578:( 3537:( 3459:b 3455:e 3399:( 3383:5 3376:D 3369:S 3352:( 3326:Σ 3270:( 3233:( 3216:( 3185:( 3169:¤ 3143:( 3081:( 2984:A 2967:( 2963:. 2905:a 2903:c 2901:z 2899:a 2897:m 2864:( 2842:2 2781:( 2753:/ 2705:5 2700:1 2659:( 2622:( 2605:( 2588:( 2574:) 2570:( 2555:) 2549:( 2522:( 2507:) 2503:( 2482:R 2471:. 2451:( 2411:( 2377:( 2325:| 2312:- 2264:y 2257:o 2250:b 2243:r 2236:e 2229:t 2222:a 2215:w 2208:f 2201:f 2194:a 2187:t 2180:S 2132:( 2117:! 2066:) 2056:T 2051:( 2015:) 2005:T 2000:( 1912:( 1895:( 1878:5 1870:M 1862:L 1809:' 1806:I 1791:( 1753:( 1703:( 1665:C 1661:/ 1638:( 1483:. 1475:) 1470:· 1464:· 1458:· 1452:· 1446:· 1440:· 1433:· 1426:· 1420:· 1415:( 1371:. 1240:( 1176:: 1119:( 1089:( 708:? 675:? 653:. 638:? 561:T 555:C 552:( 454:) 451:T 445:C 442:( 429:. 371:( 344:( 259:. 103:( 77:· 72:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index