349:
edits: 99.64% Minor edits: 99.55% Average edits per day: 34.53 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 509 edits): Major article edits: 99.28% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 4725 edits shown on this page and last 4 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.23% (11) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.49% (23) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 43.53% (2057) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 85.95% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 4 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 3702 | Average edits per page: 1.28 | Edits on top: 18.26% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 30.46% (1439 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 43.94% (2076 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 22.37% (1057 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.61% (29 edit(s)) Edits by
Knowledge namespace: Article: 64.76% (3060) | Article talk: 2.05% (97) User: 5.08% (240) | User talk: 13.54% (640) Knowledge: 10.88% (514) | Knowledge talk: 1.86% (88) Image: 0.66% (31) Template: 0.61% (29) Category: 0.02% (1) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0.08% (4) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.44% (21)
313:
they would have failed an RfA (if they weren't already an admin), it makes sense to at least question whether they should continue as one. Of course, this is hard to judge - how many people would that have to be? I will say that I think the criteria for removing admins are too high. I'm not saying I have a personal problem with anyone in particular, but the fact that one has to be absolutely horrible before they can be removed could lead to some admins feeling they don't have to be as civil or other such things as they did before their adminship. I don't think this is a very widespread problem, of course, but if gaining adminship is "no big deal" (not that it really is anymore), it seems the reverse should not be "an extremely rare enormous deal". Now, as for the category. I think it has probably very little effect. If an admin is misbehaving, they're not going to put themselves in such a category, meaning only those who have little chance of being asked to resign would even be offering it. I do see the good side of the category, which in my mind, tells users "Don't be afraid of me cause I'm an admin, let me know if I'm doing something wrong." However, there is also a downside - it may lead other admins to feel like they are under attack for
1749:
being able to see deleted edits) is that is was correct to be deleted. I'll admit to have mistakenly tagged a few things for deletion that were in fact misspellings (all that I remember were redirects to red links, though), but I never do so without first making some attempt to see if there was a correct target for them. Unfortunately, sometimes the search doesn't find them. In every case though, the original author has then fixed it, and the problem is solved. In my opinion, tagging something as a speedy shouldn't be taken as an insult, but rather a chance to improve. The tag we leave on a user's page let's them know that if the person is notable, they should assert so on the page. One case I do remember (though not the name of the article) was where I marked a page as a db-bio for having no assertion of notability. I let the author know, and they promptly inserted one, and the article, last I looked, still existed. In my mind, that is the best result of such a situation. -
288:(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process
170:. These are two places that, while not having the biggest backlogs, are rather important to be dealt with quickly. I also have a good bit of experience with both vandalism-cleaning and speedy-tagging bad articles (while I don't know of any way to count how many articles I've tagged for deletion (that have been deleted), my guess would be several hundred, as that is one thing I've been doing since my very beginning here in 04. As for dealing with vandalism, I use the non-admin revert script, so can't really claim I need that tool, but do have experience with it. I report any vandals who persist after the required warnings to AIV, but as with tagging speedy articles, I would rather be helping to reduce backlogs instead of adding to them. Another area I am active in as a user is
269:), but where the article so clearly doesn't belong that there could almost certainly be no doubt. (This is just talking about the CSD for articles - some of the others I can see how there might be confusion, of course. :) So, if I was unsure whether or not an article was speedyable, I think in almost any case it would be better to err on the side of caution and not delete it. When I've come across things like that in the past, I've generally either used a prod, or just stuck it on my watchlist to see what someone else would do, so I'd know next time there was a similar case. As an admin, depending on the case, I would think either a prod, or if I'm really 98% sure, I could always still just tag it as a speedy, and see if another admin agreed with me.
1710:
the above but may not necessary reflect on the person character. Last thing I want to see is another power tripping Admin that deletes the hardwork of other people for the sheer pleasure of destroying other people's work. While I understand there are limits to wikipedia bandwidth, and server hard drive space. Admin should be open minded, and flexible to variation, and have a broad understanding of what is useful everyone else, rather then what is just useful to me. I feel Admin must be intelligent, wise, clever, happy, unstressable do gooders, that has the time to be on
Knowledge, and that will take the time to both smell the roses, and keep things organized with a clear mind.
203:, as many are nowhere near what it says. It may also seem like a minor task, but I've found that most editors, new and experienced alike, add listings to dab pages in the format already there - so cleaning up a page early on leads to it staying clean in the future. Most of all though, my primary task is vandalism-cleanup, and this is also the reason for my RfA. It may be a task with no net gain to the project (well, that's not totally true, sometimes all a once-vandal needs to become a valued contributor is to let them know what they're doing wrong), but is quite vital to avoid a loss. For those looking for actual article writing, I'll offer my work on the page
236:, if it needs to be said. My only other real bother is when policies are cited to mean things I don't believe they say. I don't assert myself to be a know-all of every rule, and so in cases where I feel others are using a policy incorrectly, in every case I can think of, have simply discussed it with them, explaining why I am reading it a different way. I can't think of any time where I have ever made a personal attack, but rather try to discuss things rationally. I know being an admin does open the door to more stressful situations, and would strive to continue this manner of dealing with them.
87:
could be doing the site far more good by just asking for your opinions now, and either using the tools sooner, or learning where to improve so that I can request again in a while. My latest mistake that made me think "now I look bad again..." was a confusion over one of the rules of image deletion. I asked for clarification, thought the response agreed with my understanding, then acted on that, and turned out to be wrong. I now understand correctly, and realize I was perhaps a tad too
82:) – I have been working on Knowledge for some time now, and recently have been finding myself more and more in situations where I feel I could be doing much more good with admin tools. I have been around a long time (registered late 2004), though to be fair, the total active time is actually around 8 months - I didn't do much for most of 2005. For an account of that age, I don't have a
174:. I'm not the sort that goes through and does "Delete per nom" on everything, but rather add my opinions only where I feel I have something useful to add to the discussion, and so avoid that much-dreaded "voting". So, with the experience I have there, I could help close old AfDs. I also have no problem with expanding into other areas, once I learn the policies. One I have in mind is
318:
as the tags and even name and all are written in a funny manner. It seems like a harmless enough way to shake your fist at someone without really being mean about it. If an admin didn't like the label, they surely could always remove it from their own page. I wouldn't be offended if someone used it on me, though I would try to see if I could be doing something better.
1738:
In the above, I've notice there was no attempt to determine if there was a spelling error in the name, what research was done to determine this was really a vanity article, or what if any effort was made to confirm who this Eliran Diego
Herszman in. A vanity template without any notes of research or
1735:
user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)"
1734:
For the "Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eliran Diego
Herszman may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Knowledge community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Knowledge, all users are entitled to a
231:
I have never been in a conflict over the content of an article. However, I have had some disagreements over interpretation of policy (in places like AfD). I think the things that stresses me out the most is users being uncivil. I generally deal with this by ignoring rude comments and reminding others
86:
of edits, (I haven't looked in a while at exactly how many, the count will show up below eventually anyway), but have been getting much more active in the last 4-5 months. I've been putting off nominating myself, trying to wait for the "perfect time" when I'd have the best chance, but realized that I
884:
his self-nom and his answers to the questions. It's obvious that he knows exactly what he wants to do on WP, he knowshow he can be helpful, and he knows what his strengths and weaknesses are. Just from what is written above, I can tell quite plainly that he doesn't think he's perfect (which is good,
317:
being in it, even if they're doing just fiine. In the end, I think I probably wouldn't put myself in the category, but would certainly be open to any comments or critisicm (I may just put that above line in quotes on my page, I like it now). Now about rouge admins. I think it's pretty much humorous,
312:
I am aware of both. In order... I think the recall idea has some merits, as well as problems. In the past, I have stated that I don't think admins should be considered above any rules just because of their position. In my mind, it seems that if someone does something that bothers enough people that
1709:
Nominee must be people person, hardworking, civil, trustworthy, helpful, kind, temperance, friendly, have good manners. An understanding of the english language, have a good vocabulary. Understands the workings of
Wikipdia and a be good tutor. I find post counts and time on Knowledge factor toward
1499:. Goldom meets my 2k edit requirements, passes civility, is knowledgeable on Knowledge policies, good nomination statement + reasons for needing the tools, and has some good answers to the above questions. I looked at his talk page and recent contributions, and see nothing troubling. Good to go. --
1748:
I don't mean to try to pressure you, I was just wondering what you meant. As for that case, I'm afraid I can't offer much explanation... I tag a ton of db-bios every day, and don't remember that one in particular. I tried looking up the article, but it doesn't exist, so all I can figure (without
348:
Viewing contribution data for user Goldom (over the 4725 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 584 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 30, November, 2004 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major
194:
I'm afraid I have to disappoint some people here and admit I've never come close to working on a
Featured Article, and am unlikely to do so any time soon. I don't have anything against them, but I do much, much more work behind the scenes. It may be odd to admit, but one of my contributions I am
91:
for a situation in which I was confused. (To avoid being ambiguous, I edited an image CSD to how I thought it actually was, got reverted, and so asked and learned the truth). What this story is getting around to is that I can't promise to be a perfect admin, but will strive to not use any admin
368:
Username Goldom Total edits 4664 Distinct pages edited 3655 Average edits/page 1.276 First edit 22:12, November 29, 2004 (main) 3033 Talk 94 User 235 User talk 622 Image 31 Image talk 1 Template 29 Template talk 19 Help 4 Help talk 1 Category 1 Knowledge 507 Knowledge talk 87
96:
confidant in my actions (to follow in the questions) that I believe I could be of use as an admin. I've decided to throw out my inhibitions about how I'll look, and just go for it, as after all, this is about helping
Knowledge, not seeing how many people like me.
92:
actions (or normal editing actions, for that matter) before thoroughly understanding what I'm doing. For example, I would probably avoid deleting any images for the time being, until I'm fully clear on those policies. However, there are enough places I
1764:
Having looked at the deleted content, Goldom was easily seen to be correct. If any established user is interested, I will email them the full content (I'd rather not put it back on Wiki because it has what might constitute private information on it).
258:
You state you would like to use the admin tools to perform speedy deletions rather than contributing to the backlog. If you come across an article that you think warrants a speedy but you aren't quite sure. What would your actions be in this case?
885:
because nobody is), but that he does his absolute best in what he's good at. Despite not having any interaction with him, I think, from what I've seen in the past few minutes, that he'd make a very good admin. --
1292:
as he's trying to help me out now with a sockpuppet that is attacking me, but he doesn't currently have the admin tools to simply block the sock... yeah, of course I trust him with the tools. ;P -
225:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
195:
proudest of is a string of over 1,250 spelling fixes over the course of 3 days. I know it's not something unique or that no one else could have done, but no one else
137:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
211:
article, but I rewrote nearly the whole thing, and think it is, at least, much better than before. I also have a list of other work I've done that can be seen at
1855:
1261:
199:
done it, and so I feel it was an important (though exhausting) contribution. Another task I've undertaken is cleaning up pages to comply with the
153:
265:
I think the basic idea behind speedy deletions is that they are for cases where there is not only no contention about the case (which would be a
1000:
748:
1633:
1412:
1098:
1837:
1530:
33:
17:
1756:
1699:
1032:
123:
104:
79:
701:
740:, no clear reason to oppose. I'd like to see more Knowledge space edits in the future, but that'd really be a bonus.
145:
358:
1218:
301:
188:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1023:
996:
770:
149:
1423:
1410:
973:
807:
1455:
1795:
1787:
1350:
710:
331:
1818:
by having much less than 200 main talk edits. I would like to see more article development/interaction.
1439:
1094:
1013:
374:
1836:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1790:
1403:
1089:
1081:
1629:
1526:
1145:
1028:
289:
1815:
1575:
1514:
1084:
993:
899:
859:. I haven't interacted with him before, but everything that I've seen here appears to be in order.
845:
1822:
1799:
1769:
1759:
1743:
1729:
1720:
1702:
1683:
1664:
1637:
1616:
1599:
1583:
1563:
1551:
1535:
1505:
1491:
1466:
1443:
1426:
1414:
1394:
1382:
1370:
1353:
1341:
1325:
1308:
1296:
1284:
1272:
1221:
1196:
1178:
1164:
1152:
1132:
1115:
1103:
1072:
1060:
1048:
1036:
1016:
1004:
984:
958:
944:
939:
934:
922:
910:
889:
872:
851:
822:
810:
795:
783:
756:
713:
390:
343:
304:
126:
107:
1149:
1141:
1057:
978:
908:
792:
1236:
62:
1248:, of course. Excellent credentials, and I liked his answers. Another mop over here, please! ;)
1716:
1612:
1596:
1128:
942:
706:
698:
247:
204:
1753:
1740:
1726:
1696:
1680:
1435:
1321:
1192:
1009:
919:
765:
721:
697:
Me. ;) I've only seen good things from Goldom, I don't believe he'd abuse the tools at all.
212:
120:
101:
73:
1819:
1625:
1580:
1572:
1522:
1362:
1305:
1184:
1069:
886:
860:
378:
233:
1725:
This "user" rejects being peer pressured, or cabelled toward an unqualified canidate. --
1543:
An accomplished editor who will make good use of the admin tools. I've seen his work at
880:
First off, Goldom has shown himself to be a strong, hard-working contributor. Second, I
1646:
1281:
1249:
831:
741:
266:
88:
1849:
1544:
1500:
1391:
1293:
1214:
968:
954:
904:
297:
171:
167:
805:
This dif shows Goldom can remain cool under fire and not escalate under provocation.
292:
I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++
1766:
1608:
1592:
1548:
1161:
1125:
1112:
819:
725:
244:
175:
1750:
1693:
1477:
1460:
1452:
1379:
1317:
1188:
931:
791:. If I were to choose one word to describe Goldom, it would be... dependable! --
354:
117:
98:
69:
144:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1830:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1560:
1232:
1045:
1334:
1175:
1476:, clean history, understands policy, no civility issues, fine candidate. --
576:
Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 12, oppose: 2, support: 9
498:
Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0
1210:
293:
277:
1739:
attempt to determine the validity in my opinion is "trigger happy". --
200:
163:
1183:
Stricken as the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of
178:, as I have read and understand how to do the admin work in that area.
1840:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1714:
Also be aware this user very rarely supports any users RfAs anyway.--
803:. Adequate time and number of edits. See no evidence of incivility.
1607:, definitely does good work, and definitely could use the tools --
1624:- Well balanced and dedicated. Can be trusted with the tools. -
1547:
and other places and he's impressed me with his good judgement.
768:
on Goldom's Talk page, thinking that he was an admin already!
114:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
764:
Seems to be trustworthy and hardworking. Someone made an
1174:
Though I would encourage you to be tougher with vandals.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1390:. Well thought out and reasoned answers and nomination.
1689:
818:
Good responses to questions, as well as reasons above.
804:
411:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 91
687:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
675:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
642:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
594:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
555:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 8
489:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 2
459:Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
1160:No problems with this editor that I can see. --
1118:(Please don't thank me for "voting", thanks :-)
1044:. Strong candidate. Good answers to questions.
377:(click the "Show" link below and to the right)
1451:for good statement and answers to questions. —
606:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 15
585:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 29
447:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 11
666:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2
540:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 7
507:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2
474:Edits to sections, with no further summary: 3
408:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 621
8:
1402:Thoughtful, no problems handing him a mop.
552:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 11
486:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 15
1688:Would you mind explaining what you mean by
672:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 3
639:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 2
612:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 7
516:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 5
456:Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 6
1707:Users standards taken from criteria page:
364:Goldom's edit count using Interiot's tool:
534:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 231
215:, if anyone is interested in seeing more.
579:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 18
501:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 36
441:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 41
660:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1
651:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1
624:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3
600:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3
468:Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 9
1361:please help us with the backlogs!!!--
7:
1422:Very good answers to the questions.
423:Proposed deletion-related tagging: 7
621:Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1
573:Addition-related edit summaries: 11
570:Deletion-related edit summaries: 52
495:Addition-related edit summaries: 33
438:Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 3
435:Addition-related edit summaries: 66
432:Deletion-related edit summaries: 11
373:Goldom's detailed edit count using
201:disambiguation page Manual of Style
1304:Seems sensible and level-headed.--
618:Addition-related edit summaries: 1
567:Speedy deletion-related tagging: 7
531:Deletion-related edit summaries: 1
528:Speedy deletion-related tagging: 5
465:Addition-related edit summaries: 3
429:Speedy deletion-related tagging: 2
162:The big ones would be backlogs in
24:
1856:Successful requests for adminship
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
564:XfD deletion-related tagging: 8
444:Unrecognised edit summary: 1965
426:XfD deletion-related tagging: 3
582:Unrecognised edit summary: 329
537:Unrecognised edit summary: 186
504:Unrecognised edit summary: 105
1:
663:Unrecognised edit summary: 16
654:Unrecognised edit summary: 16
627:Unrecognised edit summary: 17
603:Unrecognised edit summary: 66
471:Unrecognised edit summary: 65
966:per all good reasons above.
633:Unrecognised edit summary: 1
591:Knowledge talk namespace: 87
405:Manual vandalism reverts: 20
154:administrators' reading list
1665:12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1645:excellent user all around.
1638:09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1617:00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1600:00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1584:00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1564:19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1559:Don't see any issues here.
1552:13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1536:18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1506:06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1492:05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1111:. Thank you for running. --
681:Manual vandalism reverts: 1
657:Template talk namespace: 19
549:Manual vandalism reverts: 2
483:Manual vandalism reverts: 2
357:'s edit summary usage with
133:Questions for the candidate
1872:
1823:05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1800:23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1770:20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1760:20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1744:20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1730:19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1721:14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1703:07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1684:06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1467:17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1444:06:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1427:01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1415:23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1395:19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1383:19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1371:14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1354:11:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1342:07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1326:22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1309:16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1297:04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1285:21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1273:20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1222:18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1197:20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1179:18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1165:16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1153:16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1133:13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1124:per answers to questions.
1116:09:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1104:07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1073:05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1061:04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1049:03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1037:01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1017:00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1005:00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
992:per nomination statement.
985:23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
959:22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
945:20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
935:20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
923:18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
911:18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
890:16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
873:16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
852:16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
830:Will make a good admin. --
823:15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
811:15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
796:14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
784:13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
757:13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
714:11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
397:Click Show to View Results
391:14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
344:06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
305:18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
148:, and read the page about
146:Category:Knowledge backlog
127:11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
108:11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1591:. Deserves the promotion.
1833:Please do not modify it.
722:Will not abuse the tools
546:Knowledge namespace: 512
513:User talk namespace: 640
420:Link as edit summary: 57
630:Image talk namespace: 1
597:Link as edit summary: 1
561:Link as edit summary: 1
522:Link as edit summary: 3
402:Article namespace: 3061
276:Optional question from
243:Optional question from
39:Please do not modify it
1679:Fails my criteria. --
1502:Firsfron of Ronchester
678:Help talk namespace: 1
636:Template namespace: 29
1378:- no brainer here --
762:Edit conflict Support
684:Category namespace: 1
34:request for adminship
1264:The Wiki Soundtrack!
1205:No reason not to...
732:11:40, 05 August '06
952:looks good to me. —
609:Image namespace: 31
510:No edit summary: 40
480:User namespace: 240
450:No edit summary: 27
1424:Wikipediarules2221
1280:trust with tools.
897:per Kicking222. --
588:No edit summary: 6
543:No edit summary: 6
477:No edit summary: 6
453:Talk namespace: 97
1711:
1534:
1265:
1240:
1130:
1035:
669:Help namespace: 4
329:All user's edits.
249:
205:Earth Girl Arjuna
1863:
1835:
1793:
1719:
1708:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1578:
1520:
1517:
1503:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1458:
1408:
1368:
1365:
1339:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1253:
1242:
1235:
1129:
1087:
1027:
981:
976:
971:
957:
907:
902:
870:
865:
839:
782:
780:
775:
754:
733:
728:
704:
388:
383:
340:
337:
334:
248:
213:User:Goldom/work
41:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1838:this nomination
1831:
1791:
1715:
1690:"trigger happy"
1660:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1576:
1515:
1501:
1487:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1470:
1456:
1404:
1366:
1363:
1335:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1251:
1229:
1102:
1085:
979:
974:
969:
953:
900:
898:
866:
861:
850:
835:
808::) Dlohcierekim
776:
773:(aeropagitica)
771:
769:
766:unblock request
753:
745:
734:
731:
726:
702:
691:
690:
398:
384:
379:
370:
350:
338:
335:
332:
176:Requested Moves
55:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1869:
1867:
1859:
1858:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1826:
1825:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1736:
1732:
1712:
1705:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1647:Andrew Lenahan
1640:
1619:
1602:
1586:
1566:
1554:
1538:
1508:
1497:Strong support
1494:
1471:
1469:
1463:
1446:
1429:
1417:
1406:Baseball,Baby!
1397:
1385:
1373:
1356:
1344:
1328:
1311:
1299:
1287:
1275:
1243:
1224:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1155:
1135:
1119:
1106:
1092:
1075:
1063:
1051:
1039:
1019:
1007:
987:
961:
947:
937:
925:
913:
892:
875:
854:
844:
825:
813:
798:
786:
759:
747:
735:
730:
716:
694:
689:
688:
685:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
367:
366:
365:
362:
359:mathbot's tool
347:
327:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
273:
272:
271:
270:
240:
239:
238:
237:
219:
218:
217:
216:
182:
181:
180:
179:
150:administrators
135:
134:
130:
129:
58:Final (53/2/1)
54:
49:
47:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1868:
1857:
1854:
1853:
1851:
1841:
1839:
1834:
1828:
1827:
1824:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1789:
1784:
1783:Sorry, no FA.
1781:
1771:
1768:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1737:
1733:
1731:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1713:
1706:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1519:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1498:
1495:
1493:
1490:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1409:
1407:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1260:
1255:
1254:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1056:- looks good
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1002:
998:
995:
991:
988:
986:
983:
982:
977:
972:
965:
962:
960:
956:
951:
948:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
929:
926:
924:
921:
917:
914:
912:
909:
906:
903:
896:
893:
891:
888:
883:
879:
876:
874:
871:
869:
864:
858:
855:
853:
849:
848:
843:
842:
838:
834:
829:
826:
824:
821:
817:
814:
812:
809:
806:
802:
799:
797:
794:
793:Gray Porpoise
790:
787:
785:
781:
779:
774:
767:
763:
760:
758:
752:
751:
743:
739:
736:
729:
723:
720:
717:
715:
712:
711:
708:
705:
700:
696:
695:
692:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
551:
548:
545:
542:
539:
536:
533:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
434:
431:
428:
425:
422:
419:
417:Redirects: 37
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
400:
392:
389:
387:
382:
376:
375:Ais523's Tool
372:
371:
363:
360:
356:
352:
351:
346:
345:
342:
341:
324:
323:
316:
311:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
283:
282:
281:
279:
268:
264:
261:
260:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
246:
235:
230:
227:
226:
224:
221:
220:
214:
210:
207:. It's not a
206:
202:
198:
193:
190:
189:
187:
184:
183:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
157:
155:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
103:
100:
95:
90:
85:
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
66:
64:
61:Ended 13:09,
59:
53:
50:
48:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1832:
1829:
1811:
1786:
1782:
1676:
1650:
1642:
1621:
1604:
1588:
1568:
1556:
1540:
1510:
1496:
1473:
1448:
1431:
1419:
1405:
1399:
1387:
1375:
1358:
1351:Vildricianus
1346:
1336:
1330:
1313:
1301:
1289:
1277:
1256:
1250:
1245:
1230:
1226:
1206:
1170:
1169:
1157:
1144:
1137:
1121:
1108:
1077:
1068:good luck!
1065:
1053:
1041:
1024:CrazyRussian
1022:
989:
967:
963:
949:
927:
915:
894:
881:
877:
867:
862:
856:
846:
840:
836:
832:
827:
815:
800:
788:
777:
772:
761:
749:
737:
718:
709:
648:Redirects: 2
414:Removals: 99
385:
380:
330:
328:
314:
309:
285:
275:
274:
262:
255:
242:
241:
228:
222:
208:
196:
191:
185:
159:
141:
136:
113:
93:
83:
76:
68:
60:
57:
56:
51:
46:
38:
30:
28:
1816:my criteria
1741:Masssiveego
1727:Masssiveego
1681:Masssiveego
1436:Sarah Ewart
1010:Merovingian
930:per above.
920:Newyorkbrad
918:per above.
847:Talk to me!
645:Removals: 7
615:Removals: 2
558:Removals: 7
525:Welcomes: 8
519:Removals: 3
492:Removals: 1
462:Removals: 4
116:I accept. -
1820:Themindset
1626:Aksi_great
1306:Poetlister
1237:2006-08-06
1185:Tchadienne
1142:Mailer Dia
1070:Stubbleboy
887:Kicking222
750:review me!
63:2006-08-12
31:successful
1634:review me
1282:Pete.Hurd
1252:Phaedriel
1058:abakharev
742:RandyWang
1850:Category
1814:. Fails
1573:DarthVad
1531:contribs
1527:messages
1513:. --Slgr
1392:Agent 86
1359:Support,
1316:, fine.
1294:Aknorals
1099:Contribs
955:Khoikhoi
816:Support.
719:Support.
325:Comments
234:WP:CIVIL
232:to mind
152:and the
80:contribs
1812:Neutral
1806:Neutral
1767:JoshuaZ
1643:Support
1622:Support
1609:Deville
1605:Support
1589:Support
1569:Support
1557:Support
1549:Gwernol
1541:Support
1511:Support
1474:Support
1449:Support
1432:Support
1420:Support
1400:Support
1388:Support
1376:Support
1347:Support
1331:Support
1314:Support
1302:Support
1290:Support
1278:Support
1246:Support
1227:Support
1207:Support
1171:Support
1162:Guinnog
1158:Support
1138:Support
1126:Viridae
1122:Support
1113:Ligulem
1109:Support
1090:nce Ong
1078:Support
1066:Support
1054:Support
1042:Support
1021:Yes. -
990:Support
964:Support
950:Support
940:Jaranda
932:Michael
928:Support
916:Support
905:iva1979
895:Support
878:Support
857:Support
828:Support
820:Dar-Ape
801:Support
789:Support
778:(talk)
738:Support
727:FireFox
693:Support
245:Viridae
164:CAT:CSD
1788:Миборо
1751:Goldom
1694:Goldom
1677:Oppose
1671:Oppose
1561:Jayjg
1545:WP:AIV
1380:Tawker
1364:Kungfu
1318:Stifle
1239:18:42Z
1189:Ral315
355:Goldom
172:WP:AFD
168:WP:AIV
118:Goldom
99:Goldom
70:Goldom
52:Goldom
1717:Andeh
1518:ndson
1337:Grue
1233:Quarl
1046:Zaxem
1033:email
868:Chimp
863:alpha
833:Mr. L
386:Chimp
381:alpha
333:Voice
209:great
65:(UTC)
16:<
1796:ский
1630:talk
1613:Talk
1523:page
1453:Xyra
1440:Talk
1367:Adam
1349:. —
1322:talk
1193:talk
1176:NOBS
1140:. -
1095:Chat
1029:talk
1014:Talk
980:Gerg
882:love
724:. —
707:hway
353:See
336:-of-
290:wonk
267:prod
166:and
89:BOLD
74:talk
1785:--
1754:‽‽‽
1697:‽‽‽
1692:? -
1658:bli
1597:R/W
1593:DVD
1488:el
1211:Lar
1187:.
1082:Ter
994:Roy
841:fty
339:All
315:not
294:Lar
278:Lar
197:had
121:‽‽‽
102:‽‽‽
84:ton
1852::
1661:nd
1655:ar
1652:St
1649:-
1636:)
1632:-
1615:)
1571:.
1529:-
1525:-
1485:er
1464:/
1442:)
1434:.
1333:.
1324:)
1271:-
1213::
1209:++
1195:)
1150:lo
1097:|
1080:--
1012:-
1003:.
970:Th
755:)
703:ig
310:A:
296::
286:5.
263:A:
256:4.
229:A:
223:3.
192:A:
186:2.
160:A:
156:.
142:1.
94:am
36:.
1792:в
1757:⁂
1700:⁂
1628:(
1611:(
1595:+
1581:r
1577:e
1533:)
1521:(
1516:@
1482:P
1479:M
1461:l
1457:e
1438:(
1320:(
1268:♪
1258:♥
1231:—
1219:c
1217:/
1215:t
1191:(
1146:b
1101:)
1093:(
1086:e
1031:/
1001:A
999:.
997:A
975:e
901:S
837:e
746:/
744:(
699:H
361:.
302:c
300:/
298:t
280::
124:⁂
105:⁂
77:·
72:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.