Knowledge:Requests for adminship/JamieS93

5645:

personally not convinced that the candidate has had sufficient experience in admin-related areas (which is directly relevant). (3) Per Nuclear Warfare, this concern is further heightened by the candidate's apparent failure to understand a fundamental point - while it's okay to accept an unblock request for the block you yourself instituted, you should never decline that unblock request if you yourself made the block. (4) Per Miranda, BLP issues are of utmost importance to Knowledge and they cannot be ignored (even in theory). (5) Per Friday, I understand that exceptional youngsters exist, but I've seen no sufficiently compelling evidence of unusual maturity, particularly in the absence of experience in more contentious content areas. (6) As a separate note, not forming a reason for me opposing: expecting FA GA or DYK medals as a criteria for adminship can be disgracefully unreasonable - quality content contributions can be (and are often) made in the absence of going through any (or all) of these processes that some users have their own reservations over. .

5200:, the candidate's avoidance of two of the more controversial questions (Q6 and Q10) leaves me ill at ease, and further bolsters my maturity-concerns. Maturity is more than "please", "thank you", and table manners - there is also an element of self-assertation that is less-highlighted, which I do not find in this candidate. Both of these questions are "tricky" - Q6 is going through a major upheaval thanks to Elonka's recent actions, and Q10 is an automatic Kurt-oppose. That said, there is no reason the candidate could not have answered Q6 thoughtfully, along the lines of "right now, the process seems to be going through a bit of a flux, and I'm unsure of how the future will play out / unwilling to set anything in stone that may be gamed in the future / uncomfortable setting my own criteria, but will accept a future "blanket proposal" if I feel it reasonable" or whatever. The candidate should have an answer to Q10 as well - either she feels a cool-down block is appropriate under 5204:, does not feel a cool-down block is ever appropriate, or is unwilling to answer. Yes, by leaving the answer blank she implies the last option, but there's no reason not to put this in words. Ultimately, it comes off as a bit too "needing to appease everyone" (as opposed to "ideally appeasing everyone") that's typical in pre-adulthood. I worry that if the candidate makes a mistake which results in drama (as mistakes tend to do), we'll get a WikiBreak and be left to move into phase II of the drama: bickering over whether we should let the mistake-making admin reverse themselves, or whether it's appropriate for someone else to reverse them, or whether that'd be wheel-warring, or whether considering the possibility that it may be wheel-warring is in fact a violation of 2341:. I've had nothing but positive interactions with JamieS93, and I disagree with almost all of the opposes. So what if she isn't a certain age - she has shown exemplary judgement in my view, and that qualifies her for the tools. I'm pretty disgusted at how this turning out, to be honest, although I'm not going to go into details, but here we have a user who is more than qualified for it, and we're denying her adminship. People complain when people don't have enough GAs, and here we are with an editor who focuses mainly on building the encyclopedia, but doesn't have a big pile of GAs to show for it (Jamie is obviously an editor who focuses on the drive-by cleanup tasks), and I think thats as good as any number of GAs. Strong support, good luck. :) 627:

continued and there were enough users seriously agreeing that I wasn't acting like an administrator should in any given case(s), I feel that on these grounds I would resign the position as an admin. I haven't put a label on any specific number or criteria, but if it were for the best of Knowledge, and a clear portion of the community agreed together on it (beyond the level of simply a suggested wikibreak or slowing down), I would give back the mop. As I was saying, however, I would hope to prevent this kind of problem by overall being open to discussing conflicts with others and adapting my actions if needed. Like all aspects and areas of Knowledge however, if it were for the good of the encyclopedia, I'd be willing to do it.

1221:

very solid, strong reasons to object to giving me the mop, of course mainly due to my question answers and lack of experience. I realize those incorrect facts in more detail now, and I agree that if I were a participant in an RfA like this one I wouldn't be sure about trusting a candidate who didn't appear to know some of Knowledge's more important policy. And yes, this request is certainly aiming for resulting as unsuccessful, which nearly caused me to withdraw since the opposition reasons and a portion of the community's lack of trust from has become clear. Still, I'm very grateful to the many who have supported me in this RFA and I will leave this to run its course at least for a little while longer.

689:

Knowledge discussion, getting quick links for things from the helpful folks there, or receiving casual input from others which may influence what I do in certain cases, yes. But instead I consider the suggestions I receive through IRC chat as merely opinions for less important actions that I do on Knowledge. It definitely should not be used as a means of attaining some kind of consensus on an issue such as an article's content dispute. This is because it’s not recorded on Knowledge, and it would be using something informal (IRC) for something serious or possibly controversial on Knowledge. I hope that explains what your question was aiming at, thanks.

4053:

contributor, so I expect to find a solid record of contributions to articles, and strong statements from people who know her work in that area. Yet, she has significant contributions to only two articles, and one of her nominators appears to barely know her. From what I see on her userpage, I have no doubt that she is the type of editor who will earn my support once she has gained more experience, and has the maturity to realize that you don't accept an RfA nomination from someone who barely knows you. Nominating someone after a couple of weeks of chatting on IRC sets off all kinds of warning signs.

3202:

music articles. I don't even bother to look over her edits on articles because I know that they are ALWAYS high quality. I recently gave some constructive criticism in a peer review on her first GA, and she was real receptive and eager to learn - just like I was at my first GA attempt. I know that others are concerned about her age, but be assured that it doesn't show up in her work. Our interactions have show her to be very professional and I am certain that she would make a great admin. My experience with her has been first class, and I believe she is ready join the list of admins.

2180:- Not just per nom by Majorly, but by personal feelings. I know Jamie well, and I really feel that she should be an administrator. To reply to Sandy, I had 4 GAs and 1 FA at the time of my RFA. I really doubt that's a really good reason to oppose. Also, to the ageism folks, does AGE mean EVERYTHING to you??? That is ridiculous. I am a high school student, and I passed as one as well. Age should not be a reason to oppose, even for freaking high school. If it was a 9-year-old I may see a problem, but there are adults who don't act as maturly as some teenagers do. Good luck, Jamie. 5279:", and how "substantially different" a "pre-adult" is to an "adult". Forgive me if I've interpreted this wrong, but are you claiming that I will go through a "substantial change" in a few months time when I become legally of age? I think not. Maturity, yes, but that doesn't necessarily arrive at a set age. To prove it, I know of at least one admin, who is younger than Jamie, and has been an admin for a while. I'm not sure if this user has publicly released their age, so I will keep their identity quiet (to protect them), and let them come forward if they wish. :-) 4297:) were reported as "vandalism after final warning" when that had not taken place, the users had stopped vandalising after a level 3 or 4 warning had been given, then you reported them anyway. Combined with the lack of meaningful contributions to AfD that Icewedge highlighted, I'm afraid I'm just not seeing much evidence you really understand our blocking or deletion policies particularly well. I'll happily say your article contributions are well-done and you're a great Wikipedian, just not one I'd be entirely happy with as an administrator at the moment, sorry. ~ 2681:. I'm familiar with Jamie, enough to know she is a thoughtful and careful editor. Leaving aside things such as low edit count to project namespace, I've found her answers to be very thoughtful for not editing there. For example, many of the opposer's are citing her answer to BLP as wrong (even when she says in general she thinks it should never be ignored/IAR), which I disagree with. I've also put some thought into her choice for nom's. While I think that she should have known the potential controversy for accepting from Majorly, I'm willing to 2836:: I've interacted with this user on IRC for some time now. Seems to be a good content builder. I don't believe her age bothers me too much, since I've seen current administrators who are only 13 years of age. The oppose vote regarding the AfD votes does bother me slightly, but I'm sure there's a better explanation for that. Administrators aren't perfect, and punishing a person's age rather than the ability to contribute and the depth of these contribution bothers me as well. 4967:

disputable, but it is my opinion). 3. Per DGG. I'm sorry. All three of these concerns are fixable over a few months. If you spend some time in policy discussion areas and such, you can help this. Or (alternately), if that really isn't your bag, you can knuckle down and put together more content. Either way, this is a temporary hiccup. Please don't take these oppose votes as a direct comment on your character or as a sign that they don't value your contributions.

854:

other hand, I sense that you have the maturity to make great use of admin tools in a variety of situations already. Perhaps you would consider working with a well-established admin mentor as you make decisions about where to use the tools and where to develop your experience as an admin? Believe me, I'm not looking for a promise or for a conditional RfA. Still, if you'd find it beneficial to work with a mentor (or not), I'd like to hear about it. Thanks.

5222:(with an extra-emphasis on the "all that"), there is a lot to admire about Ms. Jamie, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility at some yet-to-be-determined future date of another try, with more experience under her belt and (one would hope) a more becoming nom - this point was also raised elsewhere in the opposes. I believe even a self-nom would ultimately look better than a hyper-vigilant oppose-badgerer and a two-week IRC buddy. 5918:

than anything else. Had I been nominated three months before I was, I quite likely would have had a rough ride here, and certainly would have had a hard landing on the other side as an admin. The FA development process is pretty much unique - I can spit out B-class articles with a couple of hours work, but my last FA took me 1-2 months and my present work towards one looks like being much the same. I've seen the efforts by the

2013:— Looks like a good editor to me, with none of the issues that sometimes prevent good editors from becoming good admins. I feel that age is an issue only insofar as it impacts judgment — and in the oppose section, I see no major lapses of judgment that would be unacceptable for an administrator. Very unlikely to harm the project in any way, and very likely to continue contributing to it in whatever capacity she chooses. 4821:. Since April she's made about 100 edits on articles Spotlight was working on. And most of those are minor edits. She has only had one article where the talk page edits are in double digits, but this isn't surprising most of her article talk space is cosmetic edits. I don't see much to indicate that she has had to negotiate a controversial edit or wording on an article. Her edits to the talk space is very vanilla. 4844:

candidates who he votes does he oppose when they are serious candidates and not newbies. To give perspective, %5 is about the same percentage of candidates that KMWEBER supports. This makes me wonder how thoroughly he vets his candidates. That combined with his belligerent attitude at this (and other) RfA's is enough for me to question him. (And snide remarks elsewhere) Majorly might want to review

3367:- After a good think I have decided to support. I think overall you have the maturity, civility, and enough experience for an admin. You could help out a lot with admin actions in the areas you contribute. While I respect where the age based opposes are coming from they are very much generalising and your contributions can rebuttal them. Your amount of article writing does not concern me either. 2855:; even though I think Icewedge makes a strong point, I see helpful, constructive work in the project namespace, and a steady, consistent approach to AfD. It seems to me that JamieS93 is very unlikely to misuse the tools, and very likely to use them to the benefit of the encyclopedia. That said, I urge her to fill in the holes in her knowledge of policy pointed out in the oppose section. 1565:

enough for me to go neutral over. Also, while I generally pay more attention to younger candidates, age is not the sole guideline for maturity. Finally, if this doesn't pass (Even if it does) might I suggest responding to conversations on the page where they originated? It makes following conversations much easier---especially when multiple people get involved in the conversation.---

3393:

ruin the international reputation of Knowledge is, well, beyond me. JamieS93 has some very good contributions and is responsible from what I've seen her do, with some good answers aswell. I really disapprove of people coming to an RfA with the mindset that they should oppose until they can prove otherwise. They seem to think that perhaps that someone has got an opppose, so

4520:. Overall, I agree with Friday that young teenagers should not be administrators due to maturity issues. To overcome this objection, I'd expect to see some truly excellent collaboration skills and in-depth knowledge of policy, and I don't think that this editor is at that point yet. Continue working on articles, continue learning about policy, and don't be in a hurry. 606:

reason, but invite the user to come back and constructively contribute to Knowledge once the block's expired, giving them some basic information about the areas of Knowledge. I'd also take the length of the block into consideration; in this case, one week isn't exactly a significant time span, and the user will hopefully coming back to make good dentistry edits.

3721:

so how does having the delete counter at 11 instead of 10 improve the encyclopedia. Such votes are not necessarily bad, but the fact that such behavior seems to be her only input to AFD is not so good. An admin should have experience with controversial AFDs and close call closes. Any user with 10 edits could correctly close something like

2391:

way too often: we are supposed to discuss in RfAs, and labeling comments and responses as "badgering" does not contribute to a healthy atmosphere. By posting this support, I know and understand that someone may want to respond to me, and I welcome that. This user has contributed positively to the encyclopedia and will be a positive admin.

2715:. Despite only being a teenager, which is not really a big deal. This user is by far one of the most mature, level headed users on this project and to be honest, she puts a lot of the current sysops to shame! Good luck Jamie, and if this fails. Please try again, because you have to pass this joke of a process one day! Happy editing :-) 5940:

responsibility along with it, such as checkuser status, and the wikimedia foundation already has a system in place for checkuser. Short of that, the maturity of the individual user should be all that is relevant. If a user did not reveal their age and was mature enough, people would have no idea how old they were.

3333:. DYK certainly needs some more active updaters, having lost two active ones recently because of them being desysoped. I see no instance or evidence where she will misuse or abuse the tools. By the looks of this RfA, its mostly likely not going to be unsuccessful, unfortunately. :( But Jamie, you have my utmost 4257:

suitability for the job. The reasons above indicate that this is not yet the case here. In particular, I would expect a length of service of more than two years and/or an edit count in excess of 10'000, as well as profound experience in most areas of Knowledge administration, from a non-adult candidate.

5356:

the nominee has not shown the breadth and scope of contributions necessary to justify selection as an admin. I would encourage the nominee to continue and expand her participation in creating articles, DYK and XfD, the areas in which she has shown some aptitude, and prove to me and other editors that

4466:

Per Sandy and Icewedge. Nothing really strongly sets me against this editor, and its likely that if she returns for another RfA at some point in the future she will have easily addressed the concerns I have relating to evidence of judgment. I do want to say that Majorly's conduct on this page and the

4210:

I've read your response and I will not change my !vote. Jamie has made more than 50 edits to only two articles. An article builder should do more than that. If article building is meant to be your trump card, I want you to make at least 100 edits to two articles, and contribute 9 DYKs (create/expand)

3341:

be a good admin. You should be proud of the many supporters you have, and what you have done to Knowledge! We'll always be there rooting you on, no matter if your an administrator or not! So continue your work at Knowledge, you've done great things for this encyclopedia, sharing the gift of knowledge

2962:

I've been back and forth on this one for days. I'm echoing Darkspots and a couple of the other supporters; certainly not perfect policy knowledge, but we're all human. For me, it came down to Jamie having a very sensible head on her shoulders, and the ability to know when she might be getting in over

2814:

I wasn't sure, balancing a comprehensive Interiot count against a lack of editing experience (the type that comes with extended exposure to the environment), until I reviewed the deleted contributions section. Very, very few blue links indicating an excellent grasp of what is and what is not suitable

2689:

her, so opposing this should not be a rationale in and of itself (Majorly: when will you learn that there is a time to remain silent, and a time to speak out? Don't you realize that your actions periodically run counter to your intentions?). And lastly, age. This means nothing. We already have admins

2587:

Having looked over this user's contributions, I find an editor who is generally conscientious, incredibly civil, and genuinely concerned about the way the encyclopedia appears to the most important people - the non-contributing readers. While mistakes have been made, she is contrite and seems sincere

1518:

Even if some people think otherwise, I think age is not a reason to oppose. This user seems to behave more like an adult than many users here who are legally adults. As far as I could see, this user is civil and helpful and knows her work around Knowledge. I also think that users who adopt others and

1301:

Actually, I've probably spent more time reviewing her than most people. And trust me I'll go back and re-review her this evening when I have more time. I'm asking her to show me her best stuff. 'm giving her the chance to show me what she has. When I looked at her the other day, albeit casually, I

964:

In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action

626:

and the issues it entails, I wouldn't step my foot in there. Instead, first off, I intend be open in general with others bringing to my attention any concerns they might have with my administrative actions; if that's the case I'd stop the action in question and take a step back to discuss it. If this

5644:

for several reasons. (1) Although it appears there may be some experience with consensus building and article building, I feel there is insufficient knowledge/experience in: (a) the dispute resolution system, (b) the important fundamentals behind certain policies, and (c) in Knowledge norms. (2) I'm

5065:

I could care less how old you are. In fact, I really like that this community welcomes and protects youth, and my own RFA coach/co-nominator was a teen. But anyone who says they haven't been in any conflicts on Knowledge is either lying or is simply not ready to be an administrator. Being a sysop on

4843:

Majorly has expressed elsewhere that he believes 1000 edits and 3 months is more than enough experience to pass an RfA. He has only opposed about 15% of the RfA's he's participated in---and when he does oppose there is a very good chance that the RfA is going to SNOW Close. Only on about 5% of the

4831:

When she says that she hasn't been involved in a conflict on wikipedia, I believe her. There isn't enough evidence that she communicates with people on a regular basis to get involved in conflict. Her edits are all solid, but nothing indicates strong policy knowledge or a strong backbone. I don't

4070:

Please don't ask me not to "badger" you. You've made false statements and evaluated the candidate on something that's no fault of their own. I'm not going to stand by and watch the candidate I nominated get shot down with false comments from people. If you insist on opposing, at least get your facts

3720:

I guess you don't understand correctly and I am sorry if my comment is hard to understand. What I am saying is that voting in an AFD where 10 users have already voted to delete and none have voted to keep is not very helpful. What good does it really do? That article is obviously going to be deleted

2390:

JamieS93's answers to questions and conduct during this RfA have been very good, and I'm not seeing any immaturity in them whatsoever. In fact, if she hadn't admitted she was in high school, no one would have guessed how old she is. Regarding Majorly's "badgering", I feel that is a word that is used

4427:

per mazca as well as the answer to Xeno's usual question. Any admin should never decline an unblock request to a block that they themselves made. Also, seriously guys, age doesn't matter. Think of every editor in this wiki as anonymous. In fact, that's why many of us made accounts to begin with, to

4086:

I'm in complete agreement with Majorly here. You can be one of the best article writers on Knowledge and have few to no GAs to show for it. Just because an article worked by on by a devoted article writer, in this case, it is JamieS93, is't a GA or FA doesn't mean to say its not of a high standard.

3981:

has only one GA and no evidence of strong content contributions. There isn't enough to go on here as far as knowing enough about this editor; if article writing is her strong suit, we should see some strength in that area. And this from her nominator isn't a strong endorsement: "I've known Jamie

3759:

Is it better to have an article deleted 10:0 or 1000:0? Neither. Once consensus has been established there is not much point reinforcing that consensus. Thats sort of by the wayside though, my main point is that admins should be able to make close calls and as this user has never participated in an

853:

You strike me as trustworthy and serious about contributing to Knowledge. I share some of the concern expressed about your age, esp since you may find yourself in pretty tense conflicts. You also could benefit from more experience in some areas of interest (e.g., AfDs, see discussion above). On the

688:

I feel that IRC should not be used to initiate any actual decision-making discussions such as GA reviewing as you were mentioning, or anything other than non-controversial duties or mild input and discussion with others about certain processes on Knowledge. I personally use IRC to have some general

580:

This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be

5294:

I doubt it will happen magically overnight, but if I read that right, and you are in fact 17 and some months, I'm relatively confident that you have some growing to do yet. I deliberately avoided using the phrase "adolesence" as I figured some would take offense to it, as it oftentimes has certain

4792:

Many people including SandyGeorgia cited this as a reason to oppose. But how true is it? Well, there are only two articles where she has more than 30 edits... and for a content builder she has an average of 1.59 edits per page. Even when she got involved with SPOTLIGHT, most of the articles she

4748:

per Koji and all of the others that have gone before him. But Majorly's nom and subsequent behavior here and elsewhere taint his judgment when it comes to RfA's. I was trying to overlook my dubiousness of his nom, but Koji and QB are right, his judgment is suspect and Julian's nom can't overcome

4402:

The only ones causing problems round here are the ones who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when it comes to deciding if someone should be an admin or not. Neither of your reasons are anything to do with the candidate or adminship, so quite deservedly should be "badgered" because

4150:

Having read it (and the other support arguments) I stand by this. This RFA has got sidetracked by the age issue when it should be about ability and experience – I wholeheartedly think we need more content-driven admins, and fewer policy-wonks; I'm perfectly satisfied Jamie isn't the latter but not

984:

As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well,

5917:

Would love to support as I see no indication whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools, have seen them around and been happy with what I've seen, and believe they would make a good admin. The opposes, while not convincing me to join them, however, do give me pause - it's a timing issue more

3826:

Well, I noticed that as well, but I thought to myself, that an admin needs to be able to judge consensus and act upon it, not create consensus in the first place. If we think of admins as janitors (with the mop), their job is to clean up, not to create the mess. So I decided to support instead of

3392:

that with the development of the project that admins have to become more associated and familiar with the site and its workings to be even considered for the role of being an administrator. Since when GAs/FAs mean that your account is less likely to be compromised and/or means your more likely to

3201:

I would have (co)nominated but there are enough noms already. I'm glad I get a chance to say this in an open forum - Jamie is an extraordinary contributor. I was one of the first contributors to notice Jamie's work and I've been following her since then. We have worked together a lot on Christian

2118:

PS AFD is a consensus building discussion. Sometimes the discussion becomes intense. The candidate's ability to benefit the project with the tools should not be lost due to the nominator engaging in brisk debate with an opposer. It does not "punish" anyone for "bad behavior." It merely denies the

2097:

Trust Majorly. Net positive. Ageism is not a valid oppose rationale. I'm really surprised to see this keep cropping up in light of the capable admins and crats we have who we would not under this age based rejectionism. Also, one need not have a GA or an FA, or even be a strong article builder to

1564:

as compared to any real issues that I identified with the candidate. From my quick review, it looks as if this user is respected and her input is sought out... those are overriding criteria in my book. While I would have liked to have seen more wikipedia/wikipedia talk contributions this wasn't

1220:

I'd like to say a few things. First, I've closely read all of the comments that have been made on this RfA, and I appreciate the input from all who have participated – your opinions are valued and all taken into consideration. Quite a few of the Opposes, especially the more recent ones, have been

870:

Yes, I believe some form of working with a mentor would be helpful. After this RFA closes, however, I'll probably just be spending a couple of months working in certain areas here and gaining experience. Sometime during the next few/several months however, it would probably be nice to have casual

834:

At this point, I do not see bureaucratship as any kind of future goal or something that I'd be attempting. After being an admin it would take quite a lot of time and experience before gaining community trust on that one, so it's too far into the future for me to determine if that would even be of

5070:

mean that others will bring their conflicts to you to solve. Someone who's never been in a editing conflict (even a completely civil one) of their own is not likely to be the best moderator in those situations. To have my vote of confidence, I need to have see some history of how you react under

5011:

in her answer to Xeno's question, and also handles the unblock request for her own block, which to me is a red flag. 2) The candidate sells herself as primarily an article writer yet has only 1 GA under her belt. I only say this because the user sells herself as an article writer. Also, Majorly,

2403:

A good user who has done some article work (1 GA is fine for me and the article work is hardly some isolated incident; higher standards are fine, but 4 opposes about this is a little unusual), is reasonably mature (there are a decent amount of people on WP who are generally immature and it's not

129:

She also contributes to AfDs, and has closed a few of them already. She's also helpful to new editors, such as on the help desk and new contributors' help page. Additionally, I have recently seen her help out on Did You Know, which could always do with more admins watching it for updates. When I

5047:

Regretfully. Essentially per SandyGeorgia (and yes, Majorly, I have read your response), Protonk and per answer to Q7. I don't wish to pile on but the reactions of certain individuals here has prompted me to add my bits. I too am concerned at the accountability and life-experience maturity of a

4966:

I feel bad for piling on but there are three concerns: 1. A candidate of admin material would have quietly or publicly asked Majorly to knock it off by now. 2. A candidate working on a resume of an article builder should probably have more good/featured content under their belt (I know this is

3682:

This pattern extends as far back into her contribs as I a searched, I did notice that her input became more somewhat useful the farther back (that is weird, people should generally become better over time, not worse) but I had to go back to April before I found any input that I actually thought

605:

As for the example: I would not grant the user's unblock request due to the fact that there is too much vandalism for one good edit tossed in there; 1 in 14 (I think) vandalizing edits is not enough to prove that this user wouldn't misuse their privilege. I'd decline the request explaining this

290:

is kept in the forefront of everything. Second, fully explaining myself, citing policies and guidelines to back up my reason for an action, and encouraging further discussion if a compromise is needed in certain cases. If things get intense, stepping away from an issue for a few hours to keep a

4669:

per Icewedge and Giggy. AfD work isn't good, and your article work is lacking. I usually could care less wether candidates are good article writers, but if you claim it to be your specialty you better have something to show me. The answer to Xeno's question bothers me too, shouldn't decline an

4052:

Please don't badger my oppose; I support candidates who demonstrate competency, immersion and excellence in whatever it is that they do best, and to the extent that enough people know them, know their work, and know we can trust them with the tools. This candidate presents an mainly a content

1321:

While I have gone through her edits in great detail, I am still interested in her responding to my question. It is possible that I missed something. A few months ago I nomed somebody (not H20) and found out during the Opposes that the candidate had a major issue that I didn't know about. It

5926:

as a necessary hurdle for adminship :)) My advice would be to select a finite class of articles within your field of knowledge or capability of research, improve them to B/C as appropriate, and then selectively improve a few to GA/FA. Once you've done that, I'd be happy to support. Good luck.

4038:

One can be a content contributor without gaining trophies and medals in the form of GAs and FAs. A B-class article is an article in decent shape. And what do the nominators have to do with anything? This isn't requests for whether my nominators know me well or not-ship. It's adminship. Please

1965:- Opposing someone based on their age is downright silly, its like ," Hi I'm 90 years old"..ohh no ..you are too old to be an admin..If you really can't find a valid reason to oppose, don't vote at all...I have known Jamie for a long time, and I trust her to use the tools wisely..Just look at 1226:

In addition, I'm glad for nominations I received, although the process was not how I expected it would be. The talkpage turned into a couple of swirling arguments and the opposers didn't feel welcome, exactly. As for Majorly: In general is he a good nominator? I believed yes, and that's why I

895:

While a little late does show maturity on your part. Can you provide other links to discussions where you have demonstrated maturity and wisdom that separates you from the pack? Show me, in your past actions/dealings, that you are mature enough for the bit and I will consider moving back to

889:

Jamie, I started out supporting your and defending you against some of your critics. Unfortunately, your nom has significantly hurt your candidacy here in his actions, which isn't fair to you, but his actions have (negatively) affected the perception of this RfA. They have tied the label of

4256:

I hope you won't take this personally, Jamie, as you are obviously a great editor, and I thank you for your contributions. But given the substantial real-life impact admin decisions can have, I feel that non-adult editors should not be admins unless they have already demonstrated exceptional

3868:

My one interaction with Jamie was her poor judgment call on a recent DYK nomination I put forth (a senior editor immediately overrode her and took a rare step of chastising her take on inline referencing). Her enthusiasm to help the project is commendable, but her RfA is extremely premature.

1237:

As I said, it's possible that I may withdraw this RFA, as it has become pretty clear that there's a little crowd of concerns, but I have taken away a unique experience from this. After it's over, I'll be resuming my editing like normal, and have some constructive objections to think over and

5939:

for the moment. I'm not quite sure what opinion I will develop regarding this RfA, though some of the conversations on the talk page does concern me quite a bit - RfA's shouldn't be this dramatic. Personally, I see age as an issue only important when the position carries significant legal

965:

and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy?

4857:

As I mentioned in my original support, maturity isn't only defined by age. I have no problem with granting the bit to minors. I do see and understand the rationale behind the age oppose, but it is not the only criteria to judge a candidate. You do good work, but not adminly

3544:- High school? Too young, sorry. I'm not saying being under 18 equals being immature but I do believe that admins should have more life experience than a high schooler. They'll mostly be dealing with people who are adults, after all. That's not ageism, that's realism. Also, the 5194:- the latter of which doesn't really reduce the overall future workload, and the former is of debatable use - especially if it's the result of blind !vote-counting, without taking into account the rationales given on each side (Esperenza 2 being the most obvious example here). 4596:

They are not valid. Not one opposer has provided any evidence whatsoever that younger admins are bad ones. Not a single one. As I asked Friday on talk, if such editors bother you so much, propose all underage admins be desysopped (we have several you know, scary thought huh?)

1932:, she has already proven to be a considerable asset to the WikiProject, and to Knowledge at large. I'm also rather disappointed in the ageist opposition. I was promoted to admin when I was still "not an adult", and I didn't burn the barn down. I find it against the spirit of 2905:. Strong article work, good answers to questions. Physical age, in my experience on Knowledge, has little to do with the maturity affected here: witness the 13-year-old competent admins, and the thirty-year-olds who throw a hissy fit if My Own Personal Article is deleted. -- 3934:

Thanks Jamie... so a mistake was made... it isn't the first time and won't be the last. I think she was civil in admitting her mistake. I don't see anything in the ref's to indicate a fallacy that warrants an oppose (unless you there is something not disclosed in Jamie's

1704:- Don't let the ageist editors get to you. The fact you choose to disclose your age is admirable. People should consider looking at their maturity level rather than their age. After all, if she never said she was high-school-age there would never be such a dispute. 3503:

I've made extensive comments elsewhere, but just to clarify just a little bit: I've seen no sufficiently compelling evidence of unusual maturity. I understand that exceptional youngsters exist, but I cannot accept the hand-waving arguments that this implies that

892:

Do I approve of his conduct with this RFA? No, I firmly don't. I simply did not think that accepting his nomination would cause much drama, however. There was a lack of keeping a cool head throughout this, and I seriously wish he hadn't "badgered the opposers" as

4547:

I think Karanacs is saying that she would support despite her misgivings about age if other factors outweighed those misgivings, and that those other factors are not present. I think you did not pick the best oppose at which to make your blanket request, T-rex.

462:: This question about a historical event that took place before the candidate, or virtually any other editors participating in the RfA, had any involvement in Knowledge, strikes me as putting this or any candidate in a "no-win situation" and therefore as unfair. 5567:

Weak contributions. I am opposed to kids being admins (if you lack legal right to vote in most English-speaking countries, I discriminate). And answers to questions confirmed my attitude. And per SandyGeorgia who is 100% correct. I'm sure I'll be badgered

5136:

between pre-adults and adults, exists for me to throw rational thought to the wind and embrace this sort of ultra-radical "loony left" (for lack of a better term - not to be confused with the good ol' fashioned welfare-and-gay-marriage somewhat-utilitarian

4827:

She has over 700 user talk edits, but don't let that number deceive you. She has only commented on 2 user talk pages more than 10 times. The reason is because prior to June she was an active CSD'er and has about 400 template messages announcing a speedy

5295:

negative connotations. There are certainly exceptional exceptions to every rule, and there have certainly been exceptional underage admins - but, while I don't wish to get into gory specifics, I don't believe Jamie is one of those exceptional exceptions.

2963:

her head in any way and to know where she still might need a bit of help. She's clearly displayed the determination and commitment to this project that I like to see from potential admins, and the age thing doesn't faze me all that much. Good luck. :)

3726: 5157:

mean that I am looking for something truly outstanding about this particular candidate. We've had good under-18 admins, but I suspect this is a grand total of around 5% of all underage applicants. Does Jamie seem like an earnest, worthwhile editor?

4020:

Struck and re-phrased (unclear why you highlighted B-class in the nom blurb, Majorly). One GA, however, doesn't substantially change my concern, considering she is presented as a content contributor, and one of her noms appears to barely know her.

5411:, per answer to Q5. Your answer indicates that you have some belief that they may in fact come back to contribute constructively, so why make them wait? Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap, but constructive contributors are golden. – 3686:

This !vote will most likely change later depending if anything else is brought up; If my reason is still the only one to be found here in the oppose section in a few days time I will probably !vote support but I am just not sure how well you learn

2732:

Age is a huge and prejudicial red herring. Some admins get better with age, some get worse. I see no reason to believe that this one would get worse, and if she gets better, that will be good indeed. Good luck, Jamie, however this turns out.

1231:

throughout this, and I seriously wish he hadn't "badgered the opposers" as much. At first I had a mindset of "let him do what he wants", but it did get to be further than I thought. Still, I'm thankful for his sincere support of my pursuing

5048:

high-school-ager when considering the realities. Age is a valid issue, and will remain so. The (somewhat paradoxical) bawling slung at anyone who raises such concerns won't change that. It is, however, incidental to this particular Oppose.

3745:

I'm still slightly confused. AfD is an attempt to gain consensus of whether an article needs to be deleted. Consensus doesn't and shouldn't have a limit as to how many people can engage in the discussion. More !votes simply push consensus.

2038:, I've had a look, and I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Without looking at her user page, I would not have been aware she was a teenager, and she has so far displayed admirable maturity and good judgement. 922:

interaction most recently – no real conflict here, but some difference of opinion. I was willing to come to a compromise if it were needed about the image placement issue, though, even when it was different than the normal formatting for

4832:

see any place where she takes a stand or confronts others (except for here on her RfA after several opposed had criticized her for not addressing Majorly's behavior.) She seems to avoid conflict, her rebuttal of Majorly indicates such,

4366:

You have all right to oppose, but I think you should not base it on Majorly's actions but only on JamieS93's. It's not her fault how Majorly decides to comment and she cannot control it and thus it should not reflect negatively on her.

3845:

Perhaps the evidence suggests that she has experience in recognizing an emerging consensus in some AfD situations and, presumably like many candidates, would benefit from experience in AfDs where consensus is more difficult to analyze.

595:

I view that having to face offensive language and personal attacks is simply part of the territory when dealing with vandalism. I've had some of it as a non-admin, and will strengthen to some degree if I were in the position to block a

1838:- My experience with her on DYK has only been positive, both from seeing her work as a reviewer and as a contributor. Her articles have been solid, well-written and well-referenced. I can't see how she'd have a problem being an admin. 3722: 5394:. However, this user has demostrated a good knowledge of Knowledge so far, and I am confident, should this user wish to fulfil another RfA in a few months time (with more experience and with a few more thousand edits), it will pass. 4483:

For lack of experience and understanding of the relevant policies, Age has nothing to do with it--there are some excellent admins in HS and some much older ones who are nowhere near as competent or mature in the relevant dimensions.

1302:

didn't see any warning bells, but nothing that stood out as dealing with conflict or maturity. But even if I spent 6 hours reviewing her, I might not see anything, I want to give her the chance to show me something I might miss.---

4984:

I was thinking of what to write here, but Protonk said it well. The candidate is not quite ready. And yes she should have told Majorly to knock off by now. Majorly's behavior as an editor, nom, and admin here is utterly appalling.

2098:

wield the mop. When you come down to it, most deletion or block decisions are pretty obvious. If the candidate has any doubt, she seems bright enough to seek advice or to discuss with those more knowledgeable, seek consensus at

778:, I see "cooling down" as an insufficient reason to block – it would agitate the situation, because one or more users would feel that their legitimate opinion is being ignored for the sake of arbitrarily keeping a discussion 4338:, reluctantly. Age is irrelevant, but Sandy, Icewedge and Mazca all make good points; I'm not seeing enough evidence that this (otherwise excellent) editor has a sufficient grasp on the policies that they will need to know. 3325:, I thought she was an adult. Though, getting to know her more, I was surprised she was only 15. Jamie is very dedicated to the project from what I've seen, always working at music-related topics. As one of my main areas is 4646:

But there are no concerns about age. This has yet to ever be an issue. Also I could have asked for all opposes to be discounted, but that would be dumb and silly (although not much less rational then most of these opposes)

782:. Granted, in many situations where users are getting hot-headed and angry, incivility or attacks come with the territory. A good reason for blocking would only be if incivility got too far, however, not just frustrating a 4781:

I looked at every one of your wikispace edits. 90% of your contributions to AFD are simply adding the category. You have to go back to April before you find a single AFD where you differed from what other people said.

2323:

per 1) answers to questions and 2) disagreement with reasons to oppose listed below (particularly the maturity issue - the candidate has handled this RFA and the comments herein confidently, openly, and appropriately).

150:

I've known Jamie for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC. During that time, I've followed her contributions, which I've been consistently impressed by. She is a great content builder, getting

299:

always helps. Balanced communication is one of the most important aspects of resolving disputes, and as an admin I wouldn't treat having the tools as a distinction from others. For example, if a user were repeatedly

3795:

True, in some there were not yet overwhelming numbers but it was already clear what the final result was going to be. Again, the fact that she participates in such AFDs is not a bad thing, it is the fact that she

4670:

unblock request on your own block. And, to be completley honest, I have such little faith in Majorly's judgement that the fact that he is your nominator is a red flag as well. Age doesn't bother me though.--

3397:, there is something wrong with the candidate. RfA is a discussion and a discussion involves opinions, not always facts. So, instead of 'piling-on' or whatever the fashionable term is nowadays, why don't we 663:

is a policy meant to protect the biographies of living people from unsourced facts (especially negative ones). If the policy were to somehow get in the way of truly improving the encyclopedia, it could be

5071:

pressure. Your mainspace contributions are superb, but I'm just not comfortable with the idea of any sysop, young or old, being thrown to the wolves with no conflict resolution experience behind them.

5167: 3653: 1227:

accepted this. Do I approve of his conduct with this RFA? No, I firmly don't. I simply did not think that accepting his nomination would cause much drama, however. There was a lack of keeping a

5708:, per Friday and Icewedge. There are also valid concerns about sufficiently good understanding of WP policies, raised by others above, such as opposes by Mazca, NuclearWarfare, and Miranda. 5512:. While I think the age opposes are absolute crap, some other opposes are very valid and have convinced me. Certainly the candidate can be ready soon though, shouldn't take too much effort. 5923: 4577:

Of course you can ask, you can also ask to have ALL opposed discounted! The fact remains, as has been pointed out on the talk pages, there are very real and valid concerns about age.---

3611: 5725:– tending towards neutral, but think Wizardman has it right: with more experience of difficult situations a good candidate, but not just yet. Balloonman raises very valid concerns. .. 3401:

assess the candidate and reflect upon interactions that we've had with them (unless you can't relate to that) instead of following others and cutting off your nose to spite your face.

270:

to GA status. I’ve always enjoyed helping out other editors, especially our newer users, and have been able to exercise communication and explanation skills on Knowledge through that.

159:, a GA. Despite this, here work doesn't stop in the mainspace, as indicated above. Otherwise, Majorly pretty much covered everything. Overall, I think Jamie will make a great admin! – 5162:! But do I think Jamie stands within that particular "5%"? Not so much. Jamie's AfD participation, while a benefit to the project, comes mostly on the bleeding-obvious articles (see 5179: 3776:

But many of the references you provided were one's where she was one of the first 3-4 people to participate in the XfD. I don't see that as waiting until consensus is finalized.---

1786:. Excellent editor who seems to continue finding new ways to support the project. I believe every indication is that she will utilize the tools responsibly. (Disappointed by the 308:

and possible use of "admin powers" to control people. That would simply go against the nature of trying to calmly negotiate opinions, so I think I'd handle conflicts about the same.

2797:. This is not going to pass, but you have my support. Everything looks good. A little low on communication in the Knowledge Talk arena, but other than that, I think you'd be okay. 3128: 3605:

participated in an AFD where the article was not obviously notable/unnotable or consensus was not already clear. To illustrate this I will go over her last ten !votes to AFD's.

4407:

than me that's causing the issue. If you'd just give a proper reason for your vote, this "badgering" wouldn't be necessary. But, since you fail to, it is unfortunately needed.

3639: 3621:

she voted to delete after seven other users (counting nom) had voted to delete and one other user had voted to merge (basically a delete). There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

1477:, based on my interactions with her, I have found her to be a very mature user who will be an asset as an admin. We need more DYK admins, we've lost two in the last few weeks. 770:

are meant to prevent damage to Knowledge, I consider it this way: is the user(s) in question causing damage to Knowledge? If their heated comments or actions are not breaching

682:, policy violations, etc.? Have you ever used IRC in order to make these decisions (such as passing GA reviews)? And if so, how will that change when you are an administrator? 205:

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

3674: 3660: 5465:- Quite a few problems, both in this RfA and generally. I'd like to see more evidence of policy knowledge... perhaps come back in 6 months and I may have a support for you. 4943:. You do some great work here. However, the BLP question that I posed earlier shows that you quite don't have an understanding of some of the policies. Your response was 3667: 106:) - Jamie has been a Wikipedian since November, and as I write this has 4444 edits in total. She is mostly an article writer, with particularly good work in the area of 286:

I really haven’t had any major disputes or conflict of opinion with others on Knowledge. Whenever there has been a rub with another user, I first always make sure that

4793:

worked on she only made a few cosmetic changes. (Most less than 10 edits and those were mostly minor.) I could accept a few edits, if they were significant rewrites.

1177:

I posted my own reaction to that question above before I saw this portion of the discussion, and I agree with RyanLupin and Juliancolton on this aspect of the matter.

616:

This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it :D! Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

280:

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?

3625: 2984:

Would have breezed through the RfA process if she hadn't voluntarily revealed her age. I see nothing at all to suggest that she is incapable of handling the tools.

5995: 5186:, either pass on closing articles such as those (thus weakening her need for the tools as expressed in Q1), or take the path of least resistance, closing them as 3632: 3618: 3573: 3522: 1026: 234:

updates. After a little while I may also ease into some of the more straightforward cases of semi protecting articles or blocking sufficiently-warned vandals at

4783: 3388:

was on its way to recovery, with hardly any horrifically, injustifiably unsuccessful RfAs in recent memory. Evidently, I was wrong. Pedro makes good points on

133:

I offered to nominate her some months ago, but she declined. Now she has told me she will accept, which is excellent, since she will make an excellent admin.

6013: 4879:

After reading through this a couple of times, I must say that this oppose has got some strong reasons. Very thought-out and detailed; good work Balloonman.

1990:- due to strong positive interactions with the candidate. Additionally, I feel that age can be a very impresice mechanism with which to calculate maturity. 1000:

Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

5175: 4321:

per Sandy and Majorly. (I initially wanted to put as such, but oh well, was afraid what consequence would be waiting for me. Too bad for the candidate) --

3172:

The candidate seems to me like they would be a net positive for the project. Not convinced that any of the opposes amount to any kind of serious problem.

1322:

shocked me because I had spent HOURS going over the candidate and missed something that was staring me in the face. The same thing could happen here.---

985:

and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

709:

3RR is a policy meant to prevent repeated unconstructive reverting and edit warring over two or more parties' non-vandalistic edits. In keeping with the

4236:

If article building is meant to be your trump card.... Also lack experience with dispute resolution/consensus building on disputed material/articles. —

1066: 5016:

well enough for an admin, especially an article writing one, as demonstrated by response to Q7. These three concerns make me oppose. Cheers, Erik the

4824:

She has made 58 edits to TT:DYK. Most of them are cosmetic or moving of items to the next update page. Very few comments or evidence of discussion.

668:

within reason. However, I have never actually seen a case where it was good to ignore that rule, so in general I'd say that it shouldn't be ignored.

4211:

or 3 GAs or 1 FA. She has made ten or more than ten edits to only one talk page. However, Jamie is a fine editor and I will support her in future.

1973:, you can see that she is devoted to the Project, we need those type of people.and not those that never make any real contribution to mainspace..-- 5335:

as I do not feel truly comfortable supporting the RfA at this time. However with several more months of experience with the project, I feel that

3158: 5659:

Weak content contributions. Additionally, having children hold positions of responsibility on an influential website is inviting a PR nightmare.

3663:

she voted 'delete' after ten other users had voted 'delete' (including nom). There were no keep votes in this AFD aside from the article creator.

4806: 3646: 3635:

she voted 'speedy delete' after three other users had voted 'speedy delete' and the nom had voted delete. There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

5318:, probable lack of experience and knowledge relating to Knowledge policy, as evidenced by low level of contributions in Knowledge namespace. 4610:

have you not read anything I've written on the talk pages? Also, if you want to persist in the badgering, please do so on the talk pages.---

3317:, not age. IMHO, Jamie shows the most maturity and civility I've seen in a while. When I first met her, probably when I saw her name around 3313:- I personally don't believe age should be something to oppose about in any RfA what-so-ever. !Voters should be looking at RfA candidates as 1053: 4841:

And, to be completley honest, I have such little faith in Majorly's judgement that the fact that he is your nominator is a red flag as well.

5241:

I read thru your comments and appreciate your reasoning. But the last sentence is displeasing and I wonder if you'd strike it out? Thanks.

5031: 4440: 2500: 2445: 2430:

as a great editor, with great goals. She has exemplary judgement skills and maturity, even if some of her peers don't. Good luck, Erik the

4786:

the only reason why you fought to save it was because it was a Christian Rock Group and you belong to the the Wikiproject that governs it.

4562:

Others have been more blatant, but when you open with "teenagers should not be administrators", it is kidnof hard to assume good faith. --

2140:. Obviously, the candidate will need to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, seriously, if they wish to be a successful administrator. 254:

Majorly gave a decent synopsis of my work on Knowledge. In my own words, however, my best contributions would be article-writing with the

5950: 4845: 4694: 3752: 3713: 3531: 2146: 1609: 1369: 1264: 1170: 165: 86: 3649:

she voted 'keep' after four other users voted 'keep'. In this AfD there was actualy one 'delete' voted independent of the nominator!

2379: 74: 262:

which was promoted to GA. I have also contributed to the area of DYKs and helping with update preparation. More recently, I joined

5007:

Let me explain myself. This is not about the candidate's age. I have three major concerns. 1) The candidate shows an inability to

1096: 1060: 5391: 3428: 2530: 2478: 1680: 1464: 1090: 406: 30: 17: 1401:. Kind editor and great article writer. Very experienced with Knowledge and will be a major help to the DYK backlog. Good luck, 717:), since endless reverting doesn't help the problem or get it anywhere. The only time that 3RR does not apply is when reverting 2992: 2922:. I don't really see why not. Age isn't the issue here, the issue is will she get the job done and my belief is that she will.- 1936:

to oppose for that reason without any effort to find evidence that a candidate is not suitable due to any other circumstance.

5840:: seems like a decent admin, and my standards are lenient, but.. the underlying circumstances lean me from support to oppse. 5548:

Sorry, but the candidate's answers and contribution history do not indicate they are prepared for admin duties at this time.

4805:. About 20 edits, including "your welcomes," is her total contribution there. Her nom also praises her for contributing to 4712: 4681: 3223:

to spite the opposition. If you remove this vote (you should), remove all the others that go age-age-age and nothing else. --

2950: 1740: 1113: 1046: 919: 103: 80: 2102:, etc. Does not seem likely to go berserk, block out of spite or anger, or delete the main page. Cheers, and happy editing. 1022: 766:

to disregard a fairly important piece of policy. More importantly, it's based on reasonable logic that I agree with. Since

5868: 3677:

she voted to 'redirect' after three other users (including nom) had voted to delete. There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

3556:

she's born in 1993. In other words, 14 or 15 years old. If I knew for a fact she's 14 I would have voted "strong oppose".

3018: 2417: 428: 5436:

A thoughtful editor who is dedicated to the project but unready at this time for adminship tools. Note: This oppose is

5357:

she is ready for prime time. A strong potential future admin who will merit serious consideration by me in a future RfA.

3007:

Good contributions, and while I see no real need for the tools I also see no evidence that the user will not abuse them.

5171: 3245: 2690:

who are her age, and do quite well. Her actions and behavior here have been excellent, so I see no issue with maturity.

2544: 1754:

If I knew of this, I would ask to co-nominate. Amazing job in Spotlight, and I can't say anything about age because I'm

1561: 410: 3670:

she voted to 'delete' after three other users (incluing nom) had voted to delete. There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

3614:

she voted to 'delete' after four other users (including nom) had voted to delete. There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

1345:

I don't think Jamie has sufficient judgement to function as a good administrator—from what I've seen of him, at least.

4915: 3153: 1629: 1480: 762:, cool-down blocks shouldn't be used. As for my own application of that, I personally would not step into the area of 5821:

because I just can't make my mind up yet! I'll probably make a more firm support/oppose choice in the next few days.

2631:

I believe Jamie is ready to be an definitely admin, and I don't buy the reasons given by the opposition (i.e.: age)

222:

updates and the deletion process, two areas where I feel that I have decent experience in. I would help out with the

5166:'s oppose, #3 at the time of this writing). It is my understanding that the real backlog on AfD does not come from " 4945:

If the policy were to somehow get in the way of truly improving the encyclopedia, it could be ignored within reason.

2404:

totally linked to age), because their conduct is great (opposing because the nominator tried to discuss a vote says

4508: 3628:

she voted to delete after six other users (counting nom) had voted to delete. There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

2985: 2643: 1772: 5172:

You Merged My 200KB Article on a Pokemon's Girlfriend so I'm Nominating This Fictional Character as Well You Jerks

5129:, I'm quite inclined to put my faith in the latter opinion. Too much scientific thought, agreeing that there is a 5673: 5168:

My Garage Band That is the Most Famous Band in the World According to Our MySpace and is Thus Not Eligible for A7

4218: 4186: 3642:

she voted delete after four other users (counting nom) had voted to delete. There were no Keep votes in this AFD.

2851:

This may end up being an moral support, but if it's a real one I'll be happy with the outcome. I like what I see

3577: 3557: 1150: 5859:

Pardon me for asking this, but I'm a little confused as to what underlying circumstances you are referring to.

5076: 5025: 4436: 2820: 2766:

The whole age thing is very unfair. Animum is 13 and he is a good admin... Why would a 15-year-old be worse? ≈

2754: 2494: 2439: 1708: 526: 5012:

getting an article to B class isn't that impressive. 3) The candidate does not understand the vital policy of

4629:

You're the one badgering T-rex here... if you going to start a discussion, don't complain if someone replies.

2408:

about the candidate) and because they don't use IRC as a social networking tool or a place to make decisions.

890:

immaturity to it and brought into question how well your nom's vetted you. At the same time, your response,

5972: 5323: 5138: 2833: 2125: 2108: 1966: 3342:

to our readers, making positive changes to our world. That's why we're here, ain't it? :) Kind regards, --

1543:. Appears to be a trustworthy, level-headed user with no visibly troublesome contributions. Best of luck. — 304:

me to the point that they needed to be blocked, I would definitely ask another admin to handle it to avoid

5946: 5928: 5908: 5692: 5300: 5264: 5227: 5105:. Feel free to bleat "ageism" all you want, but if it's a choice between a handful of people on a Wiki or 4990: 4911: 4692: 4326: 4061: 4029: 3990: 3750: 3711: 3529: 3301: 3224: 3148: 3074: 2573: 2168: 1607: 1544: 1367: 1262: 1168: 163: 3417:

Very well said Rudget, very well said. If only there were more Wikipedians that thought like that on RfA

3032: 450:

Do you consider Jimbo Wales to be the Founder or Co-Founder of Knowledge? A one word answer will suffice

5650: 5093: 5053: 4948: 4504: 3476: 2667: 2636: 1978: 1843: 1182: 467: 267: 156: 68: 5994:

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

5687: 4039:

evaluate the candidate on whether they'd make a good admin, not on other irrelevant things. Thank you.

2568: 2120: 2103: 5088:

My apologies, but per Q#7 BLP is a serious real life issue above meerely improving the encyclopedia.--

3407: 2588:

about learning from them. I can find no evidence supporting the idea that the tools would be misused.

2311: 1238:

gradually work on to become a better editor. :-) Sorry for being kind of long-winded. Thanks to all,

353:

Which in your opinion is the most important Knowledge policy? Again please don't explain your answer.

5826: 5730: 5536: 4867: 4797:

The answer to Xeno's question bothers me too, shouldn't decline an unblock request on your own block.

4758: 4619: 4586: 4339: 4212: 4180: 4159: 4126: 3961: 3944: 3892: 3874: 3785: 3423: 3418: 3314: 3209: 3070: 2970: 2720: 2525: 2520: 2473: 2468: 2252: 2154: 2085: 1916: 1674: 1588: 1574: 1460: 1331: 1311: 905: 818: 570: 402: 5980: 5955: 5931: 5912: 5891: 5872: 5850: 5830: 5811: 5790: 5770: 5747: 5733: 5717: 5698: 5679: 5654: 5636: 5619: 5600: 5583: 5559: 5541: 5522: 5504: 5488: 5457: 5428: 5403: 5366: 5348: 5327: 5304: 5289: 5268: 5249: 5231: 5097: 5080: 5057: 5038: 4994: 4976: 4961: 4932: 4919: 4894: 4872: 4771:

Well, Majorly doesn't think my oppose is valid because I cited another person's rationale. I cited

4763: 4740: 4714: 4696: 4683: 4655: 4637: 4624: 4605: 4591: 4570: 4557: 4549: 4542: 4529: 4512: 4495: 4475: 4461: 4445: 4415: 4397: 4380: 4361: 4344: 4330: 4313: 4280: 4269: 4248: 4224: 4205: 4192: 4165: 4145: 4132: 4096: 4079: 4065: 4047: 4033: 4015: 3994: 3965: 3949: 3929: 3897: 3878: 3854: 3840: 3811: 3790: 3771: 3754: 3740: 3715: 3702: 3586: 3566: 3533: 3515: 3480: 3448: 3430: 3412: 3376: 3359: 3329:, I have seen and noticed her work around that area as well. I'm sure she'll be able to help update 3305: 3284: 3267: 3250: 3227: 3215: 3193: 3180: 3167: 3137: 3119: 3099: 3078: 3061: 3044: 3023: 2999: 2976: 2954: 2931: 2923: 2914: 2897: 2881: 2864: 2856: 2846: 2824: 2806: 2789: 2758: 2742: 2724: 2703: 2673: 2652: 2623: 2600: 2579: 2558: 2532: 2507: 2480: 2452: 2421: 2395: 2385: 2368: 2350: 2333: 2315: 2298: 2274: 2257: 2238: 2221: 2204: 2187: 2172: 2163:

per nom, willingness to adopt and welcome new users, and overall sense of genuineness and maturity.

2150: 2130: 2113: 2089: 2072: 2042: 2030: 2005: 1982: 1957: 1943: 1920: 1897: 1875: 1847: 1830: 1803: 1778: 1763: 1746: 1712: 1696: 1684: 1657: 1634: 1611: 1593: 1549: 1535: 1510: 1494: 1469: 1444: 1428: 1410: 1393: 1371: 1358: 1336: 1316: 1292: 1266: 1253: 1210: 1186: 1172: 1159: 1138: 910: 862: 543: 530: 516: 502: 485: 471: 432: 414: 384: 191: 167: 141: 5807: 5742: 5454: 5421: 5344: 5073: 5017: 4802: 4553: 4429: 3707:

If I understand correctly, editors aren't allowed to !vote in AfDs that have had previous !votes? –

3190: 2927: 2860: 2816: 2750: 2486: 2431: 1721: 1705: 1149:

of his questions? The "don't explain your answer" bit makes me wonder if he's just having a laugh.

1135: 742: 586: 522: 379: 119: 5760:

Kind of uneasy about this candidate. When she answers my questions, I will think about my choice.

5965: 5501: 5362: 4887: 4707: 4676: 4525: 4246: 4007:

content contributions. You can't be serious saying she's weak in this area - it's her main area.

3922: 3806: 3766: 3735: 3697: 3402: 3389: 3263: 3057: 2944: 2895: 2768: 2329: 2307: 2270: 2068: 1998: 1730: 1402: 1246: 1206: 1109: 1040: 184: 176:

I accept the nomination, and would like to thank my nominators for having faith in my potential.

123: 97: 2748:

I like JamieS93's statement in the discussion section above enough that I will support, support

5941: 5919: 5904: 5864: 5785: 5667: 5632: 5569: 5554: 5477: 5446: 5296: 5282: 5260: 5223: 4986: 4972: 4689: 4390: 4354: 4322: 4054: 4022: 3983: 3747: 3708: 3526: 3372: 3293: 3280: 3040: 3013: 2910: 2802: 2698: 2413: 2361: 2217: 2200: 2164: 2141: 1953: 1604: 1437: 1364: 1287: 1259: 1165: 947: 752:

In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.

722: 512: 424: 160: 130:

first came across her, she was one of those users who made me think "I thought she was one".

5646: 5614: 5596: 5399: 5089: 5049: 4473: 4467:

talkpage (or rather, whats been moved to the talkpage) is damaging the candidate's chances.

3512: 3496: 3472: 3241: 2663: 2594: 2547: 2234: 2023: 1975: 1863: 1839: 1650: 1406: 1178: 810:

No, this is the only account that I've used (I've never done any anonymous editing, either).

713:

cycle, content disputes should instead be discussed between the two parties (with perhaps a

541: 463: 296: 63: 5726: 5713: 5529: 5256: 5209: 5122: 4929: 4860: 4751: 4652: 4612: 4579: 4567: 4539: 4374: 4276: 4154: 4121: 3957: 3937: 3885: 3870: 3834: 3778: 3656:

she voted 'keep' after three other users had voted 'keep' and one had voted 'speedy keep'.

3442: 3204: 3095: 2964: 2837: 2295: 2245: 2226: 2081: 1906: 1818: 1670: 1625: 1581: 1567: 1529: 1486: 1453: 1324: 1304: 898: 879: 794: 775: 767: 481: 397: 340: 327: 107: 2685:

that she thought it shouldn't matter who presented her. Majorly obviously does not speak

5066:

Knowledge doesn't necessarily mean you'll get in to nasty conflicts of your own, but it

5963:

because I don't know the candidate, but the ageism rampant in the opposes sickens me.

5882: 5841: 5803: 5513: 5451: 5413: 5340: 5114: 4260: 3351: 3186: 3133: 3109: 2660:. I'm familiar with JamieS93's editing, and I know she's ready for the mop. Good luck! 2392: 2099: 2052: 2039: 1929: 1768: 1228: 1131: 924: 779: 718: 491: 374: 364: 360: 292: 263: 5450:

atmosphere generated by Majorly, clearly demonstrate levelheadedness and maturity. —

6007: 5497: 5387: 5383: 5379: 5358: 5205: 5183: 5163: 5126: 5013: 5008: 4880: 4702: 4671: 4521: 4491: 4289: 4237: 4092: 3915: 3802: 3762: 3731: 3693: 3598: 3468: 3463: 3326: 3322: 3259: 3178: 3053: 2940: 2890: 2877: 2738: 2682: 2589: 2346: 2325: 2266: 2056: 1993: 1970: 1933: 1869: 1755: 1353: 1239: 1202: 1198: 1036: 1018: 783: 771: 763: 759: 726: 710: 700: 665: 660: 651: 623: 392: 331: 305: 301: 287: 255: 235: 227: 219: 177: 93: 4288:, I'm concerned about knowledge of some admin areas you want to work in. Of the few 871:

mentoring with an experienced admin, before the time comes for another possible RFA.

5860: 5779: 5762: 5661: 5628: 5549: 5468: 5246: 5110: 5106: 4968: 4953: 4727: 4631: 4599: 4455: 4409: 4199: 4139: 4073: 4041: 4009: 4000: 3851: 3597:

as I would be rather surprised if this user has ever made a useful contribution to

3384:. I had thought prior to my impromtu resignation of my administrator bit, that the 3368: 3277: 3036: 3008: 2906: 2798: 2692: 2409: 2213: 2196: 1949: 1884:. Absolutely yes. If I had known about this, I would have co-nommed. Great editor. 1503: 1424: 1387: 1281: 938: 859: 714: 679: 635: 508: 495: 420: 259: 152: 135: 115: 5182:. From the candidate's current body of work, I can only infer that she would, at 3492:

Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute.

5609: 5592: 5395: 5319: 5118: 4468: 4453:

I would like to see more experience before I would feel comfortable supporting.

3910:(last revision of the discussion). And the related user talk page comments were 3688: 3509: 3493: 3236: 2541: 2230: 2209: 2015: 1937: 1857: 1796: 1690: 1643: 536: 5709: 4925: 4648: 4563: 4535: 4369: 4298: 3829: 3760:

RFA where the result was anywhere new ambiguous I am not sure that she can. -

3437: 3091: 2611: 2376:

as good article contributor and due to no memorable negative interactions. --

2291: 2290:- a great article writer and can be trusted. I see no reason not to approve -- 1813: 1620: 1524: 1127: 918:

It's true that I don't have a lot of experience with that, but I can think of

477: 317: 5988:

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

4087:

She doesn't need badges on her userpage to show she's a good article writer.

3956:

Your input is noted, B-man, and my vote remains in this category. Thank you.

5276: 5142: 4947:

BLP is a very big legal issue for Knowledge and shouldn't be "ignored", per

3343: 1760: 54: 5685:

I hope you realize that there are already people under 18 who are admins.--

476:

If you read the question carefully you'll see it can be answered cleverly.

3292:- Good article work, very mature, hope to see you here again sometime. :) 2889:. Nothing to indicate that they'll abuse the tools. Age is irrelevant. 2243:

Gavrilo Princip doesn't count... he had just turned 20 at the time. ;-)---

4486: 4088: 3173: 2873: 2734: 2342: 2262: 1363:

AGK, would you mind providing some diffs to back up that claim? Cheers. –

1346: 3725:

correctly, what we need are admins who know what to do with an AFD like

1201:; it would be helpful if the candidate considered expanding her answer. 589:

and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

5242: 3847: 1885: 1279:

looking for the maturity in her edits, instead of asking her for them?

855: 843: 223: 111: 1519:

work at the help desk show a certain willingness to help other users.

622:

Since I'm not entirely familiar with a more formal recall system like

5998:

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

3982:

for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC."

3903: 3318: 2815:

content. As for everything else, it can be learned while on the job.

1969:

and tell me how many of those were actually "kids"?...Looking at her

1791: 238:, since I have done some vandal-fighting and AIV reports in the past. 4388:

is not helping Jamie, Majorly. You taint her with your badgering.

1197:

The response to Question 7 suggests an inadequate understanding of

1112:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 3435:

Yes, very good comment. I really miss such comments these days...

3330: 231: 4882: 3917: 3552:

in the username of her real-life sister WordyGirl90) lead me to

2055:

is amazing, and she would almost certainly not misuse the tools

1855:- I think she'll be a great admin, and... the ageism opposes. -- 1241: 582: 507:

Yes, and that clever answer was the one I was expecting to see.

179: 57: 5390:

and possibly help out at other places on Knowledge. Out of his

4889: 4701:

It's definetly a good sign, but I still have the chills. :-/ --

4688:

Ah, but does my co-nomination outweigh Majorly's judgment? :) –

3924: 3129:

Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User is X

1248: 373:“for technical/legal reasons” constitutes an explanation. :-O — 186: 5275:

Reading through that, you seem to refer to this thing called "

4924:

There is a legal issue regarding this user? Please explain. --

2119:

project the use of the candidate's full capabilities. Cheers,

1436:- Great interaction, although I had no idea she was female... 4274:

Per Sandy, I'm afraid. (Yes, I've seen Majorly's response.) —

3654:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Santa Teresa (fictional city)

174:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

4534:

Can I ask for all votes based on ageism to be discounted? --

678:

Should IRC be used in order to make any decisions regarding

4836:

We need people who will take definitive action when needed.

4352:- per age and (lesser so) Majorly's badgering of opposes. 3977:, the editor is presented as mostly an article writer, but 3031:

For all the reasons cited above, but also in opposition to

155:

to GA, and most recently (today) she helped contribute to

4773:

per Koji and all of the others that have gone before him.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

5174:", but rather from those tricky judgement calls such as 3612:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Demo (Demi Lovato album)

248:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

5441: 5002: 4834:

At first I had a mindset of "let him do what he wants."

4818: 4814: 4810: 4385: 4295: 4293: 3911: 3907: 3087: 3069:

Please don't become discouraged if this doesn't pass.

2852: 2712: 1521:

Note: I may change this vote pending further questions.

1084: 1078: 1072: 969:: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus? 721:, or if one party is inserting sensitive material like 1275:

To Balloonman: Forgive me for being blunt. Why aren't

419:

What is the point in a question with only one answer?

118:

which is a good article. She is also a contributor to

5922:

crew in that regard too (although I'm not suggesting

4910:

per concerns the user may not be legally accountable

3902:

A couple of links that might help: the discussion at

3145:

per Acalamari, and to contradict the ageist opposes.

2519:

Very good editor and no reason she isn't trustworthy

5615: 4813:

The nom praises her for her work on Spotlight where

3640:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Josh Dean (musician)

3352: 3344: 1164:

Agreed. Question 4c seems particularly outrageous. –

828:

Do you intend on attempting to become a Bureaucrat?

5444:comments above, about what I have come to see as a 4118:. Sandy sums it up perfectly, so I won't repeat it. 3675:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/TBA (Shakira album)

3661:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Orange bellied pike

5610: 2181: 1642:– Kid? Yes. Behaves like one? Definitely not. — 218:As an administrator, I intend to mainly work with 5924:scaling cyclone fences to get obscure photographs 5627:per SandyGeorgia and to a lesser extent Friday. - 4003:) expanded from a three-line stub. Her edits are 3668:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/This Runs Through 2358:Not a problem with this user being an admin. :-) 703:mean and why? When should one ignore the policy? 654:mean and why? When should one ignore the policy? 1669:(I completely thought you were a guy, though!) — 1579:21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Changing to oppose--- 5881:I meant the Majorly situationon the talk page. 4951:. I also oppose on some of the concerns above. 4801:In her nom she is described as contributing to 3626:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Inverted (band) 3337:. Always remember that us supporters think you 804:Have you previously edited under another name? 212:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 3633:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ashley Hinshaw 3619:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Axiom (WALL-E) 5208:, or whether it might just be a violation of 4403:they aren't fair on the candidate. It's more 3258:, I see no apparent reason not to support. -- 110:, with her two most worked on articles being 8: 3019: 3014: 3009: 5392:4,469 edits, only 394 are in the Wiki-space 3235:She'll do fine. I see no reason to oppose. 1948:Has done excellent work for the project. -- 5440:based on chronological age: the nominee's 5255:Apologies if my rationale upsets you, but 2872:. Reasonable answers. Good contributions. 2155:Snake! It's a Snake! Oh, no, it's a snake! 1418:- likes High School Musical :p Seriously, 5382:, I would like to see more experience at 4839:Finally, there was Koji's final comment, 3883:Eco, could you provide a link to this?--- 3827:going neutral or oppose because of that. 2195:— How many teenagers have started a war? 3185:I think she would make a great admin —— 1108:Please keep discussion constructive and 5141:, perhaps?) left-wing, of which I am a 4768:moving response to Major to talk page. 1130:'s third question really necessary? —— 5003:I had toast for breakfast this morning 3647:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Otenet 3107:- I see nothing to warrant an oppose. 2377: 1720:- Nothing alarming. Looks good to me. 535:That's what I was hoping for as well. 5151:While I am not opposing solely on age 4807:Knowledge:New contributors' help page 490:Hehe, very clever RMHED. Looking for 363:for technical/legal reasons, I'd say 7: 2464:Hmm I wonder who your talking about 334:? Please don't explain your answer. 6014:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 5591:Not enough wikipedia space edits.-- 4775:So let's see what Koji had to say: 4292:reports you've made, at least two ( 4152: 4119: 1619:Good editor. No reason to oppose.-- 786:user by trying to cool things down. 758:First off, following the policy at 326:Which is the more important policy 53:Final: (86/51/5); Closed at 23:45, 4846:the Nominators role during the RfA 581:unblocked. Please review the very 24: 4790:and your article work is lacking. 4197:See my response to SandyGeorgia. 4137:See my response to SandyGeorgia. 2605:Ridicoulously intense and honest 1928:. Although she's a new editor to 5212:, and so on and so on and so on. 3052:Seems like a reasonable person. 2609:. Don't worry! You'll get it! -- 2592:has my trust, and full support. 1665:my first editor review was from 1562:weak comes more from my laziness 1502:No good oppose reasons so far.-- 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 5802:As above, waiting for answers. 5764: 5674: 4955: 4160: 4155: 4127: 4122: 3691:by jumping on the banwagon. - 3110: 2939:. good 'pedia builder. Cheers, 2618: 2615: 2566:–awesome editor, great person-- 2554: 2551: 2548: 1870: 1825: 1819: 1814: 1733: 1723: 1479: 1438: 1385:Jamie will make a great admin! 1354: 1347: 637: 5777:Awaiting answers, as Miranda. 5763: 5374:- Although this user has been 5281: 4954: 4703: 4672: 3275:-- regardless of age. Best, -- 2360: 1504: 1487: 1481: 1114:Special:Contributions/JamieS93 1025:. For the edit count, see the 636: 521:"Yes" would have been better. 496: 1: 4855:Age doesn't bother me though. 4708: 4677: 4151:that she would be the former. 3800:participates in such AFDs. - 3499:21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 3035:long winded attack below. -- 2635: 1822: 1440:weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 264:WikiProject Tropical cyclones 148:Co-nomination by Juliancolton 122:, where she has done work on 5668: 5339:would make a fine admin. -- 3979:has no article above B class 3508:youngster is exceptional. 3086:I liked these well reasoned 2784: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2612: 2381:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 2016: 1864: 5981:21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 5956:03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 5932:20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5913:23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5892:12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5873:18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5851:17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5831:13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5812:10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5791:06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5771:22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 5748:23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 5734:20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 5718:14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 5699:17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 5680:12:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 5655:13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 5637:19:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 5620:16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 5601:11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 5584:21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5560:18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5542:15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5523:12:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5505:03:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5489:02:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5458:23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5442:04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5429:18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5404:17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5367:17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5349:15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5328:08:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5305:04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5290:19:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5269:04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 5250:13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5232:08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5098:02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5081:01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 5058:23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 5039:22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4995:22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4977:22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4962:22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4933:15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4920:21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4895:23:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 4873:06:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 4764:20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4741:20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4715:20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4697:20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4684:20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4656:15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4638:15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4625:15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4606:15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4592:14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4571:14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4558:21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4543:19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4530:18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4513:17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4496:17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4476:16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4462:15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4446:15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4416:21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4398:16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4381:12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4362:12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4345:12:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4331:12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4314:12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4281:07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4270:05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4249:04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4225:03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4206:04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4193:03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4166:15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 4146:04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4133:03:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4097:15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4080:05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4066:05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4048:05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4034:05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 4016:04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3995:03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3966:01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3950:01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3930:01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3898:01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3879:00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3855:13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3841:11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3812:01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3791:01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3772:01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3755:01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3741:01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3716:01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3703:00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3683:helped flesh out consensus. 3587:02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3567:00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 3534:23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 3516:20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3481:23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3466:19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3449:17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3431:17:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3413:17:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3377:11:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3360:02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3306:00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3294: 3285:08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 3268:00:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 3251:12:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 3228:07:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 3216:19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3194:12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3181:07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3168:02:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3138:00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3120:00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 3100:22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3079:16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3062:06:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3045:05:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3024:05:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3000:04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 2977:04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 2955:23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2932:23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2915:22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2898:20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2882:19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2865:19:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2847:17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2825:16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2807:16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2790:15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2759:15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2743:14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2725:14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2704:11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2674:22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2653:22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2624:21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2601:19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2580:19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2559:17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2533:17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2508:22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2481:17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2453:16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2422:16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2396:16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2386:16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2378:Happy editing! Sincerely, 2369:15:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2351:15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2334:15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2316:15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2299:15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2275:05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 2258:21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2239:17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2222:16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2205:15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2188:14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2173:14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2151:13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2131:13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2114:13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2090:12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2073:11:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2043:11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2031:10:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 2024: 2006:10:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1983:05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1958:04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1944:03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1921:03:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1898:02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1876:02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1848:02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1831:01:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1804:01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1779:01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1747:00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1713:00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1697:22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1685:22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1658:22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1635:21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1612:21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1594:20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1550:21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1545: 1536:21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1511:21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1495:21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1470:21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1445:21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1429:21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1411:21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1394:18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1372:23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1359:23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1337:16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 1317:23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1293:21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1267:14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1254:04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1211:20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1187:01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 1173:23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1160:23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1139:23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 1021:'s edit summary usage with 911:21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 863:00:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 544:22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 531:16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 517:17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 503:02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 486:02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 472:01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 433:19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 415:19:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 385:21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 256:Christian music WikiProject 230:discussions, and doing the 201:Questions for the candidate 192:20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 168:18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 142:18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 126:as well as other articles. 6030: 5903:per sandyG and similar. -- 5192:no consensus (auto relist) 4853:Oh yeah, I almost forgot: 4817:and two on the associated 633:Additional questions from 316:Additional questions from 5527:On that I can agree...--- 4726:— Sorry, but too young. 4503:Per Friday and SandyG. -- 4071:right before commenting. 3601:. By this I mean she has 3548:in her username (and the 835:interest to me to pursue. 5991:Please do not modify it. 5139:utilitarian-Universalist 2540:- seems fine to me. :) — 2025:Defender of Open Editing 39:Please do not modify it. 3471:is indefinitely banned 1894:who used to be Soxred93 934:Optional questions from 878:Optional question from 842:Optional question from 817:Optional question from 793:Optional question from 266:and minorly helped get 114:(which is B-class) and 2080:- trustworthy editor. 1811:- looks good to me. 736:Optional question from 5741:- Maturity concerns. 4939:Sorry, but I have to 2306:You have my support. 774:and remaining fairly 585:scenario outlined at 268:Hurricane Karl (2004) 157:Hurricane Karl (2004) 31:request for adminship 5608:Per Sandy Georgia.-- 5145:-waving supporter). 3999:Er... she has a GA ( 3603:never ever, not once 3521:Discussion moved to 1258:Very well said. :) – 1034:Links for JamieS93: 723:copyright violations 302:personally attacking 4803:Knowledge:Help desk 4779:AfD work isn't good 4749:that deficeincy.--- 3033:User:Badger Drink's 587:User:Xenocidic/RFAQ 4471: 4179:per SandyGeorgia. 2622: 2051:Her work with the 1603:As co-nominator. – 1232:administratorship. 1116:before commenting. 539: 40: 5795: 5697: 5682: 5582: 5487: 5447:Lord of the Flies 5041: 5037: 5009:assume good faith 4912:George The Dragon 4469: 4268: 4168: 3589: 3536: 3375: 3249: 3199:Strongest support 3136: 2997: 2647: 2610: 2578: 2506: 2461: 2451: 2157: 2149: 2071: 1895: 1878: 1800: 1776: 1742: 1737: 1656: 1633: 1546:Mizu onna sango15 1522: 957: 537: 297:rational thinking 226:backlog, closing 124:Thirty Years' War 38: 6021: 5993: 5979: 5975: 5968: 5889: 5848: 5794:And no badgering 5793: 5788: 5782: 5767: 5766: 5745: 5695: 5690: 5686: 5676: 5670: 5660: 5617: 5612: 5581: 5579: 5574: 5532: 5520: 5486: 5483: 5474: 5466: 5427: 5424: 5418: 5333:Regretful Oppose 5287: 5285: 5079: 5034: 5028: 5023: 5020: 5006: 4958: 4957: 4891: 4884: 4863: 4815:she has one edit 4754: 4737: 4734: 4710: 4705: 4679: 4674: 4634: 4615: 4602: 4582: 4505:Malleus Fatuorum 4458: 4432: 4412: 4393: 4377: 4372: 4357: 4311: 4267: 4265: 4258: 4244: 4221: 4215: 4202: 4189: 4183: 4169: 4164: 4162: 4157: 4142: 4131: 4129: 4124: 4076: 4058: 4044: 4026: 4012: 3987: 3940: 3926: 3919: 3888: 3837: 3832: 3781: 3571: 3520: 3445: 3440: 3410: 3405: 3371: 3354: 3346: 3298: 3239: 3212: 3207: 3176: 3161: 3156: 3151: 3132: 3116: 3090:about your RfA. 3021: 3016: 3011: 2996: 2993: 2990: 2973: 2967: 2842: 2841:- Jameson L. Tai 2786: 2783: 2780: 2777: 2774: 2771: 2701: 2695: 2672: 2651: 2649: 2646: 2641: 2639:Diligent Terrier 2620: 2617: 2614: 2597: 2576: 2571: 2567: 2556: 2553: 2550: 2503: 2497: 2492: 2489: 2467: 2456: 2448: 2442: 2437: 2434: 2384: 2382: 2366: 2364: 2248: 2183: 2153: 2145: 2128: 2123: 2111: 2106: 2067: 2026: 2018: 2001: 1996: 1981: 1941: 1913: 1910: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1872: 1866: 1856: 1827: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1801: 1798: 1794: 1777: 1766: 1741: 1735: 1731: 1725: 1693: 1648: 1623: 1584: 1570: 1547: 1532: 1527: 1520: 1508: 1492: 1489: 1483: 1456: 1442: 1390: 1356: 1351: 1327: 1307: 1290: 1284: 1250: 1243: 1100: 1059: 1012:General comments 956: 953: 944: 936: 925:that WikiProject 901: 640: 639: 500: 390:Another comment: 382: 188: 181: 138: 90: 6029: 6028: 6024: 6023: 6022: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6004: 6003: 6002: 5996:this nomination 5989: 5978: 5973: 5966: 5964: 5954: 5883: 5842: 5786: 5780: 5756: 5743: 5693: 5688: 5664: 5575: 5570: 5530: 5514: 5479: 5470: 5467: 5422: 5414: 5412: 5283: 5072: 5032: 5026: 5018: 4861: 4752: 4735: 4732: 4632: 4613: 4600: 4580: 4456: 4443: 4430: 4410: 4391: 4375: 4370: 4355: 4299: 4261: 4259: 4238: 4219: 4214:Masterpiece2000 4213: 4200: 4187: 4182:Masterpiece2000 4181: 4140: 4074: 4056: 4042: 4024: 4010: 3985: 3938: 3886: 3835: 3830: 3779: 3489: 3443: 3438: 3408: 3403: 3369:Camaron | Chris 3210: 3205: 3174: 3159: 3154: 3149: 2994: 2986: 2971: 2965: 2840: 2699: 2693: 2661: 2644: 2637: 2595: 2574: 2569: 2501: 2495: 2487: 2465: 2446: 2440: 2432: 2380: 2362: 2246: 2227:Gavrilo Princip 2126: 2121: 2109: 2104: 2049:Strong support: 1999: 1994: 1974: 1939: 1911: 1908: 1892: 1886: 1860: 1797: 1792: 1759: 1745: 1736: 1691: 1582: 1568: 1530: 1525: 1467: 1454: 1388: 1382: 1325: 1305: 1288: 1282: 1123: 1052: 1035: 1014: 949: 940: 937: 899: 383: 378: 203: 136: 108:Christian music 66: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6027: 6025: 6017: 6016: 6006: 6005: 6001: 6000: 5984: 5983: 5970: 5958: 5944: 5934: 5915: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5834: 5798: 5797: 5774: 5755: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5736: 5720: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5662: 5657: 5639: 5622: 5603: 5586: 5562: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5507: 5491: 5460: 5431: 5406: 5369: 5351: 5330: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5235: 5234: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5195: 5100: 5083: 5074:Steven Walling 5060: 5042: 4997: 4979: 4964: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4837: 4829: 4825: 4822: 4811:3 edits there. 4799: 4794: 4787: 4743: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4515: 4498: 4478: 4464: 4448: 4441: 4431:NuclearWarfare 4428:be anonymous. 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4383: 4347: 4333: 4316: 4283: 4272: 4251: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3684: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3671: 3664: 3657: 3650: 3643: 3636: 3629: 3622: 3615: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3488: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3379: 3362: 3308: 3287: 3270: 3253: 3230: 3218: 3196: 3183: 3170: 3163: 3140: 3122: 3102: 3081: 3064: 3047: 3026: 3002: 2979: 2957: 2934: 2917: 2900: 2884: 2867: 2849: 2834:Admin Coaching 2827: 2817:LessHeard vanU 2809: 2792: 2761: 2751:Hiberniantears 2745: 2727: 2709:Strong support 2706: 2676: 2658:Strong Support 2655: 2629:Strong Support 2626: 2603: 2582: 2561: 2535: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2462: 2398: 2388: 2371: 2356:Strong Support 2353: 2339:Strong support 2336: 2318: 2301: 2288:Strong Support 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2263:David Lightman 2190: 2178:Strong support 2175: 2161:Strong support 2158: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2092: 2075: 2063: 2060: 2046: 2033: 2008: 1985: 1963:Strong Support 1960: 1946: 1923: 1903:Strong Support 1900: 1879: 1858: 1850: 1833: 1806: 1799:(aka justen) 1781: 1749: 1732: 1728: 1715: 1699: 1687: 1660: 1637: 1614: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1538: 1513: 1497: 1472: 1465: 1447: 1431: 1413: 1399:Strong support 1396: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1319: 1296: 1295: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1234: 1233: 1223: 1222: 1216: 1214: 1213: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1142: 1141: 1122: 1119: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1101: 1031: 1030: 1023:mathbot's tool 1013: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 994: 993: 992: 991: 978: 977: 976: 975: 931: 930: 929: 928: 875: 874: 873: 872: 839: 838: 837: 836: 814: 813: 812: 811: 790: 789: 788: 787: 733: 732: 731: 730: 693: 692: 691: 690: 672: 671: 670: 669: 631: 630: 629: 628: 610: 609: 608: 607: 600: 599: 598: 597: 564:Questions from 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 523:LessHeard vanU 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 377: 347: 346: 345: 344: 321: 312: 311: 310: 309: 274: 273: 272: 271: 242: 241: 240: 239: 202: 199: 197: 195: 194: 146: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6026: 6015: 6012: 6011: 6009: 5999: 5997: 5992: 5986: 5985: 5982: 5977: 5976: 5969: 5967:Corvus cornix 5962: 5959: 5957: 5952: 5948: 5943: 5938: 5935: 5933: 5930: 5925: 5921: 5916: 5914: 5910: 5906: 5902: 5894: 5893: 5890: 5888: 5887: 5879: 5878: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5870: 5866: 5862: 5857: 5856: 5854: 5853: 5852: 5849: 5847: 5846: 5839: 5835: 5833: 5832: 5828: 5824: 5820: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5809: 5805: 5800: 5799: 5796: 5792: 5789: 5784: 5783: 5775: 5773: 5772: 5769: 5768: 5758: 5757: 5753: 5749: 5746: 5740: 5737: 5735: 5732: 5728: 5724: 5721: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5707: 5704: 5700: 5696: 5691: 5684: 5683: 5681: 5677: 5671: 5665: 5658: 5656: 5652: 5648: 5643: 5640: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5623: 5621: 5618: 5613: 5607: 5604: 5602: 5598: 5594: 5590: 5587: 5585: 5580: 5578: 5573: 5566: 5563: 5561: 5558: 5557: 5553: 5552: 5547: 5543: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5534: 5533: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5521: 5519: 5518: 5511: 5508: 5506: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5492: 5490: 5485: 5484: 5482: 5476: 5475: 5473: 5464: 5461: 5459: 5456: 5453: 5449: 5448: 5443: 5439: 5435: 5432: 5430: 5425: 5419: 5417: 5410: 5407: 5405: 5401: 5397: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5381: 5377: 5373: 5370: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5355: 5352: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5338: 5334: 5331: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5314: 5306: 5302: 5298: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5288: 5286: 5278: 5274: 5270: 5266: 5262: 5258: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5248: 5244: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5220:All that said 5218: 5217: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5199: 5196: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5173: 5169: 5165: 5161: 5156: 5152: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5144: 5140: 5135: 5132: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5101: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5084: 5082: 5078: 5075: 5069: 5064: 5061: 5059: 5055: 5051: 5046: 5043: 5040: 5035: 5029: 5021: 5015: 5010: 5004: 5001: 4998: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4983: 4980: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4965: 4963: 4960: 4959: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4931: 4927: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4917: 4913: 4909: 4906: 4896: 4893: 4892: 4886: 4885: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4865: 4864: 4856: 4852: 4847: 4842: 4838: 4835: 4830: 4826: 4823: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4798: 4795: 4791: 4788: 4785: 4780: 4777: 4776: 4774: 4770: 4769: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4756: 4755: 4747: 4744: 4742: 4738: 4729: 4725: 4722: 4716: 4713: 4711: 4706: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4695: 4693: 4691: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4682: 4680: 4675: 4668: 4665: 4657: 4654: 4650: 4645: 4639: 4636: 4635: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4617: 4616: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4604: 4603: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4584: 4583: 4576: 4572: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4516: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4499: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4488: 4482: 4479: 4477: 4474: 4472: 4465: 4463: 4460: 4459: 4452: 4449: 4447: 4444: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4433: 4426: 4423: 4417: 4414: 4413: 4406: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4396: 4394: 4387: 4384: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4373: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4360: 4358: 4351: 4348: 4346: 4343: 4342: 4337: 4334: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4317: 4315: 4312: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4296: 4294: 4291: 4287: 4284: 4282: 4279: 4278: 4273: 4271: 4266: 4264: 4255: 4252: 4250: 4247: 4245: 4243: 4242: 4235: 4232: 4226: 4222: 4216: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4190: 4184: 4178: 4175: 4167: 4163: 4158: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4144: 4143: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4130: 4125: 4117: 4114: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4078: 4077: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4046: 4045: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4014: 4013: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3980: 3976: 3973: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3942: 3941: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3921: 3920: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3890: 3889: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3867: 3864: 3856: 3853: 3849: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3839: 3838: 3833: 3825: 3813: 3810: 3808: 3804: 3799: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3782: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3770: 3768: 3764: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3753: 3751: 3749: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3739: 3737: 3733: 3728: 3724: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3712: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3695: 3690: 3685: 3681: 3676: 3672: 3669: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3655: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3641: 3637: 3634: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3620: 3616: 3613: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3575: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3535: 3532: 3530: 3528: 3524: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3514: 3511: 3507: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469:User:BhaiSaab 3467: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3441: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3429: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3421: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3411: 3406: 3400: 3396: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3380: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3363: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3347: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3309: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3297: 3291: 3288: 3286: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3274: 3271: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3252: 3247: 3243: 3238: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3226: 3222: 3219: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3208: 3200: 3197: 3195: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3182: 3179: 3177: 3171: 3169: 3166: 3164: 3162: 3157: 3152: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3126: 3123: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3115: 3114: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3065: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3048: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3017: 3012: 3006: 3003: 3001: 2998: 2991: 2989: 2983: 2980: 2978: 2975: 2974: 2968: 2961: 2958: 2956: 2952: 2949: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2935: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2918: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2899: 2896: 2894: 2893: 2888: 2885: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2868: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2835: 2831: 2828: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2813: 2810: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2793: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2765: 2762: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2731: 2728: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2707: 2705: 2702: 2697: 2696: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2677: 2675: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2650: 2648: 2642: 2640: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2621: 2608: 2604: 2602: 2599: 2598: 2591: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2577: 2572: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2546: 2543: 2539: 2536: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2523: 2518: 2515: 2509: 2504: 2498: 2490: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2463: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2449: 2443: 2435: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2399: 2397: 2394: 2389: 2387: 2383: 2375: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2365: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2337: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2322: 2319: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2189: 2186: 2179: 2176: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2132: 2129: 2124: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2112: 2107: 2101: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2032: 2029: 2027: 2020: 2019: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1997: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1980: 1977: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1945: 1942: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1924: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1915: 1914: 1904: 1901: 1899: 1891: 1889: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1867: 1861: 1854: 1851: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1817: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1795: 1789: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1727: 1726: 1719: 1716: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1688: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1661: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1638: 1636: 1631: 1627: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1585: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1548: 1542: 1539: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1528: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1501: 1498: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1484: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1468: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1452:Good editor. 1451: 1448: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1435: 1432: 1430: 1427: 1426: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1391: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1350: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1268: 1265: 1263: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1245: 1244: 1236: 1235: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1118: 1117: 1115: 1111: 1102: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1005: 1002: 1001: 999: 996: 995: 990: 987: 986: 983: 980: 979: 974: 971: 970: 968: 967:In a nutshell 963: 960: 959: 958: 955: 954: 952: 946: 945: 943: 935: 926: 921: 917: 914: 913: 912: 909: 908: 907: 903: 902: 894: 888: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 869: 866: 865: 864: 861: 857: 852: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 833: 830: 829: 827: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 809: 806: 805: 803: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 754: 753: 751: 748: 747: 746: 744: 740: 737: 728: 724: 720: 716: 715:third opinion 712: 708: 705: 704: 702: 698: 695: 694: 687: 684: 683: 681: 677: 674: 673: 667: 662: 659: 656: 655: 653: 649: 646: 645: 644: 642: 641: 625: 621: 618: 617: 615: 612: 611: 604: 603: 602: 601: 594: 591: 590: 588: 584: 579: 576: 575: 574: 572: 568: 565: 545: 542: 540: 534: 533: 532: 528: 524: 520: 519: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 501: 499: 493: 489: 488: 487: 483: 479: 475: 474: 473: 469: 465: 461: 458: 457: 455: 452: 451: 449: 446: 445: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 399: 394: 391: 388: 387: 386: 381: 376: 372: 369: 368: 366: 362: 358: 355: 354: 352: 349: 348: 342: 339: 336: 335: 333: 329: 325: 322: 320: 319: 314: 313: 307: 303: 298: 294: 289: 285: 282: 281: 279: 276: 275: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 250: 249: 247: 244: 243: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 214: 213: 211: 208: 207: 206: 200: 198: 193: 190: 189: 183: 182: 175: 172: 171: 170: 169: 166: 164: 162: 158: 154: 149: 144: 143: 140: 139: 131: 127: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 102: 99: 95: 91: 88: 85: 82: 79: 76: 73: 70: 65: 61: 59: 56: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5990: 5987: 5971: 5960: 5936: 5929:Orderinchaos 5905:Rocksanddirt 5885: 5884: 5880: 5877: 5858: 5855: 5844: 5843: 5837: 5836: 5822: 5818: 5817: 5801: 5778: 5776: 5761: 5759: 5738: 5722: 5705: 5641: 5624: 5605: 5588: 5576: 5571: 5564: 5555: 5550: 5537: 5535: 5528: 5516: 5515: 5509: 5493: 5480: 5478: 5471: 5469: 5462: 5445: 5437: 5433: 5415: 5408: 5375: 5371: 5353: 5336: 5332: 5315: 5297:Badger Drink 5284:Stwalkerster 5280: 5261:Badger Drink 5240: 5224:Badger Drink 5219: 5201: 5197: 5191: 5188:no consensus 5187: 5159: 5154: 5150: 5133: 5130: 5103:TL;DR oppose 5102: 5085: 5067: 5062: 5044: 4999: 4987:Sumoeagle179 4981: 4952: 4944: 4940: 4907: 4888: 4881: 4868: 4866: 4859: 4854: 4840: 4833: 4796: 4789: 4778: 4772: 4759: 4757: 4750: 4745: 4731: 4723: 4690:Juliancolton 4666: 4630: 4620: 4618: 4611: 4598: 4587: 4585: 4578: 4517: 4500: 4485: 4480: 4454: 4450: 4435: 4434: 4424: 4408: 4404: 4389: 4368: 4353: 4349: 4340: 4335: 4323:Caspian blue 4318: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4285: 4275: 4262: 4253: 4240: 4239: 4233: 4198: 4176: 4138: 4115: 4072: 4040: 4008: 4004: 4001:Matthew West 3978: 3974: 3945: 3943: 3936: 3923: 3916: 3893: 3891: 3884: 3865: 3828: 3801: 3797: 3786: 3784: 3777: 3761: 3748:Juliancolton 3730: 3709:Juliancolton 3692: 3602: 3594: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3527:Juliancolton 3505: 3500: 3460: 3459: 3436: 3424: 3419: 3398: 3394: 3386:RfA proccess 3385: 3381: 3364: 3350: 3349: 3338: 3334: 3310: 3296:Sunderland06 3295: 3289: 3276: 3272: 3255: 3232: 3220: 3203: 3198: 3165: 3146: 3142: 3124: 3112: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3083: 3067:Weak Support 3066: 3049: 3028: 3004: 2987: 2981: 2969: 2960:Weak Support 2959: 2947: 2936: 2919: 2902: 2891: 2886: 2869: 2839: 2838: 2829: 2811: 2794: 2767: 2763: 2747: 2729: 2716: 2708: 2691: 2686: 2678: 2662: 2657: 2645: 2638: 2632: 2628: 2606: 2593: 2584: 2563: 2537: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2485::) Erik the 2474: 2469: 2458: 2427: 2426: 2405: 2400: 2373: 2363:Stwalkerster 2359: 2355: 2338: 2320: 2303: 2287: 2253: 2251: 2244: 2192: 2184: 2177: 2165:Cosmic Latte 2160: 2142:UltraExactZZ 2137: 2094: 2077: 2057: 2048: 2035: 2021: 2014: 2010: 1992: 1991: 1987: 1962: 1925: 1917: 1907: 1902: 1887: 1881: 1852: 1835: 1812: 1808: 1787: 1783: 1751: 1722: 1717: 1701: 1689: 1677: 1666: 1662: 1651: 1644: 1639: 1616: 1605:Juliancolton 1600: 1589: 1587: 1580: 1575: 1573: 1566: 1557:Weak Support 1556: 1555: 1540: 1523: 1515: 1505: 1499: 1478: 1474: 1459: 1458: 1449: 1439: 1433: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1398: 1386: 1365:Juliancolton 1348: 1332: 1330: 1323: 1312: 1310: 1303: 1280: 1276: 1260:Juliancolton 1247: 1240: 1215: 1166:Juliancolton 1153: 1152: 1151: 1146: 1107: 1106: 1093: 1087: 1081: 1075: 1069: 1063: 1056: 1049: 1043: 1003: 997: 988: 981: 972: 966: 961: 950: 948: 941: 939: 933: 932: 927:'s articles. 915: 906: 904: 897: 891: 886: 877: 876: 867: 850: 841: 840: 831: 825: 816: 815: 807: 801: 792: 791: 755: 749: 738: 735: 734: 706: 696: 685: 675: 657: 647: 634: 632: 619: 613: 592: 577: 566: 563: 562: 497: 459: 456:Co-founder. 453: 447: 396: 389: 370: 356: 350: 337: 323: 315: 283: 277: 260:Matthew West 251: 245: 232:Did you know 215: 209: 204: 196: 185: 178: 173: 161:Juliancolton 153:Matthew West 147: 145: 134: 132: 128: 116:Matthew West 100: 92: 83: 77: 71: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 5723:Weak oppose 5647:Ncmvocalist 5606:Weak Oppose 5510:Weak oppose 5463:Weak oppose 5198:Furthermore 5143:foam-finger 5131:substantial 5090:Cube lurker 5050:Plutonium27 4809:. I count 4234:Weak Oppose 3473:Plutonium27 3315:Wikipedians 3221:Big Support 2664:Malinaccier 2210:Joan of Arc 1905:Of course. 1840:Daniel Case 1790:ageists.) 1179:Newyorkbrad 896:Support.--- 780:cool-headed 725:or a clear 464:Newyorkbrad 359:Other than 64:Warofdreams 5920:WP:BANKSIA 5823:John Sloan 5727:dave souza 5531:Balloonman 5378:active on 5160:Absolutely 5134:difference 4862:Balloonman 4753:Balloonman 4728:Kurt Weber 4614:Balloonman 4581:Balloonman 4341:Black Kite 4263:Sandstein 3958:Ecoleetage 3939:Balloonman 3935:links?)--- 3914:. Thanks, 3887:Balloonman 3871:Ecoleetage 3780:Balloonman 3395:by default 3071:Keepscases 2717:John Sloan 2596:Jim Miller 2457:Switch to 2247:Balloonman 2082:PhilKnight 1671:Cyclonenim 1583:Balloonman 1569:Balloonman 1455:Shapiros10 1326:Balloonman 1306:Balloonman 1121:Discussion 900:Balloonman 880:Balloonman 819:Keepscases 795:Jennavecia 784:good faith 729:violation. 699:What does 680:GA reviews 650:What does 567:John Sloan 398:Cyclonenim 258:including 5886:Wizardman 5845:Wizardman 5804:America69 5517:Wizardman 5496:Not yet. 5452:Athaenara 5341:Kralizec! 5277:Adulthood 5127:this lady 4819:talk page 4550:Darkspots 3574:talk page 3572:See also 3523:talk page 3187:RyanLupin 3113:Gtstricky 2988:faithless 2924:Red4tribe 2857:Darkspots 2393:Acalamari 2127:cierekim 2110:cierekim 2053:Spotlight 2040:Lankiveil 1626:Talk Page 1229:cool head 1132:RyanLupin 1079:block log 1027:talk page 739:RyanLupin 719:vandalism 375:SlamDiego 293:cool head 120:Spotlight 55:31 August 6008:Category 5869:contribs 5744:Tiptoety 5359:Alansohn 5337:JamieS93 5210:WP:CIVIL 5180:this one 5176:this one 5164:Icewedge 5123:this guy 5119:this guy 5115:this guy 5111:this guy 5107:this guy 4858:work.--- 4522:Karanacs 3803:Icewedge 3763:Icewedge 3732:Icewedge 3694:Icewedge 3464:BhaiSaab 3260:Kjetil r 3246:contribs 3155:Mountain 3088:comments 2951:contribs 2941:Casliber 2892:Celarnor 2590:JamieS93 2418:contribs 2326:Townlake 2267:JayHenry 2147:Evidence 1971:userpage 1793:user:j 1773:contribs 1724:Wisdom89 1681:contribs 1630:Contribs 1203:CIreland 1047:contribs 1037:JamieS93 1019:JamieS93 429:contribs 407:contribs 371:Comment: 341:WP:CIVIL 328:WP:CIVIL 104:contribs 94:JamieS93 75:contribs 47:JamieS93 5961:Neutral 5937:Neutral 5861:Tombomp 5838:Neutral 5819:Neutral 5765:miranda 5754:Neutral 5663:east718 5629:Djsasso 5434:Oppose. 4969:Protonk 4956:miranda 4828:delete. 4633:Majorly 4601:Majorly 4457:MBisanz 4442:My work 4411:Majorly 4254:Oppose. 4241:Realist 4201:Majorly 4141:Majorly 4075:Majorly 4057:Georgia 4043:Majorly 4025:Georgia 4011:Majorly 3986:Georgia 3461:Support 3382:Support 3365:Support 3335:support 3311:Support 3290:Support 3278:Cameron 3273:Support 3256:Support 3233:Support 3143:Support 3125:Support 3105:Support 3084:Support 3050:Support 3037:GoRight 3029:Support 3005:Support 2982:Support 2937:Support 2920:Support 2907:Wikiacc 2903:Support 2887:Support 2870:Support 2830:Support 2812:Support 2799:Useight 2795:Support 2764:Support 2730:Support 2679:Support 2607:Support 2585:Support 2564:Support 2538:Support 2517:Support 2428:Support 2410:Tombomp 2406:nothing 2401:Support 2374:Support 2321:Support 2304:Support 2214:Useight 2197:Matthew 2193:Support 2138:Support 2100:WP:AN/I 2095:Support 2078:Support 2036:Support 2011:Support 1988:Support 1950:PeaceNT 1930:WP:WPTC 1926:Support 1853:Support 1836:Support 1809:Support 1784:Support 1756:younger 1718:Support 1702:Support 1663:Support 1640:Support 1617:Support 1601:Support 1541:Support 1516:Support 1506:Xp54321 1500:Support 1475:Support 1466:My work 1450:Support 1434:Support 1425:Sceptre 1420:support 1389:Majorly 1380:Support 1349:Anthøny 1054:deleted 666:ignored 638:miranda 509:Useight 498:Xp54321 460:Comment 421:Tombomp 365:WP:NPOV 361:WP:COPY 224:CAT:CSD 137:Majorly 112:Leeland 87:renames 5739:Oppose 5706:Oppose 5694:folsom 5689:daniel 5642:Oppose 5625:Oppose 5593:Dacium 5589:Oppose 5577:Marlin 5572:Orange 5565:Oppose 5409:Oppose 5396:D.M.N. 5372:Oppose 5354:Oppose 5320:Stifle 5316:Oppose 5206:WP:AGF 5170:" or " 5153:, age 5125:, and 5086:Oppose 5077:(talk) 5063:Oppose 5045:Oppose 5033:CAESAR 5014:WP:BLP 5000:Oppose 4982:Oppose 4941:oppose 4908:Oppose 4746:Oppose 4736:Colts! 4724:Oppose 4667:Oppose 4518:Oppose 4501:Oppose 4481:Oppose 4470:Avruch 4451:Oppose 4425:Oppose 4350:Oppose 4336:Oppose 4319:Oppose 4286:Oppose 4177:Oppose 4116:Oppose 4005:mostly 3975:Oppose 3904:T:TDYK 3866:Oppose 3599:WP:AFD 3595:Oppose 3554:assume 3542:Oppose 3513:(talk) 3510:Friday 3497:(talk) 3494:Friday 3487:Oppose 3399:really 3390:WT:RFA 3373:(talk) 3327:WP:DYK 3323:WP:AFD 3319:T:TDYK 3237:SWik78 3191:(talk) 3150:Little 3127:- per 3054:Haukur 2683:assume 2575:folsom 2570:daniel 2542:AySz88 2502:CAESAR 2459:Oppose 2447:CAESAR 2308:Bstone 2231:Jon513 2017:Mr. IP 1979:styles 1934:WP:AGF 1909:Burner 1859:Coffee 1788:haters 1692:naerii 1645:Animum 1554:(ecx2) 1416:Oppose 1403:Cunard 1199:WP:BLP 1136:(talk) 772:WP:NPA 768:blocks 764:WP:IAR 760:WP:CDB 624:WP:AOR 538:Avruch 393:WP:IAR 332:WP:NPA 288:WP:CIV 236:WP:AIV 81:rights 5710:Nsk92 5675:email 5481:nine 5376:quite 4883:Jamie 4277:Giggy 4161:scent 4156:iride 4128:scent 4123:iride 4055:Sandy 4023:Sandy 3984:Sandy 3918:Jamie 3425:fusco 3331:T:DYK 3225:harej 3211:broil 3206:Royal 3092:RMHED 2972:Cobra 2966:Glass 2832:with 2527:fusco 2475:fusco 2182:Mitch 2062:dodge 1976:Comet 1815:jj137 1621:Natl1 1482:Maxim 1242:Jamie 1128:RMHED 1110:civil 1061:count 951:nine 893:much. 776:civil 596:user. 478:RMHED 411:email 318:RMHED 180:Jamie 60:(UTC) 33:that 16:< 5974:talk 5909:talk 5865:talk 5827:talk 5808:talk 5787:ergy 5731:talk 5714:talk 5669:talk 5651:talk 5633:talk 5597:talk 5568:too. 5551:Sher 5498:Ling 5423:talk 5416:xeno 5400:talk 5363:talk 5345:talk 5324:talk 5301:talk 5265:talk 5247:Talk 5228:talk 5184:best 5178:and 5155:does 5094:talk 5068:does 5054:talk 4991:talk 4973:talk 4949:this 4916:talk 4784:Then 4709:Dude 4704:Koji 4678:Dude 4673:Koji 4554:talk 4526:talk 4509:talk 4492:talk 4386:This 4327:talk 4220:talk 4188:talk 4093:talk 4062:Talk 4030:Talk 3991:Talk 3962:talk 3912:here 3908:here 3906:was 3875:talk 3852:Talk 3807:talk 3798:only 3767:talk 3736:talk 3729:. - 3727:this 3723:this 3698:talk 3689:WP:N 3506:this 3477:talk 3420:Alex 3353:talk 3345:RyRy 3339:will 3302:talk 3264:talk 3242:talk 3134:Macy 3096:talk 3075:talk 3058:talk 3041:talk 3020:Mate 2945:talk 2928:talk 2878:talk 2861:talk 2853:here 2821:talk 2803:talk 2755:talk 2739:talk 2721:talk 2713:this 2711:per 2700:ergy 2668:talk 2613:crea 2522:Alex 2470:Alex 2414:talk 2347:talk 2330:talk 2312:talk 2265:. -- 2235:talk 2218:talk 2201:talk 2169:talk 2122:Dloh 2105:Dloh 2086:talk 2069:Talk 2000:moff 1995:Gazi 1967:this 1954:talk 1938:Tito 1912:0718 1865:talk 1844:talk 1823:talk 1769:talk 1675:talk 1652:talk 1560:the 1407:talk 1289:ergy 1207:talk 1183:talk 1145:Are 1091:rfar 1073:logs 1041:talk 1017:See 920:this 860:Talk 743:talk 583:NSFW 571:talk 527:talk 513:talk 492:clue 482:talk 468:talk 425:talk 403:talk 295:and 98:talk 69:talk 58:2008 5942:CCG 5781:Syn 5678:// 5672:// 5666:// 5616:Fan 5611:LAA 5556:eth 5502:Nut 5472:Ase 5438:not 5388:ANI 5384:AFD 5380:AIV 5202:xyz 5190:or 5027:AVE 5019:Red 4930:rex 4890:S93 4653:rex 4568:rex 4540:rex 4487:DGG 4405:you 4376:Why 4290:AIV 4089:Qst 3925:S93 3836:Why 3673:In 3666:In 3659:In 3652:In 3645:In 3638:In 3631:In 3624:In 3617:In 3610:In 3581:SIS 3561:SIS 3525:. – 3444:Why 3409:get 3404:Rud 3321:or 3175:SQL 2874:Axl 2785:Kid 2735:Abd 2694:Syn 2687:for 2496:AVE 2488:Red 2441:AVE 2433:Red 2343:Qst 2296:rex 2059:Den 1882:YES 1874:// 1871:ark 1868:// 1862:// 1752:Yes 1667:her 1628:) ( 1531:Why 1283:Syn 1277:you 1249:S93 1154:SIS 1147:any 1126:Is 1097:spi 1067:AfD 998:17. 982:16. 962:15. 942:Ase 887:14. 851:13. 826:12. 802:11. 750:10. 727:BLP 711:BRD 701:3RR 661:BLP 652:BLP 494:?-- 448:4c. 395:. — 351:4b. 330:or 324:4a. 306:COI 228:AfD 220:DYK 187:S93 62:by 6010:: 5911:) 5871:) 5829:) 5810:) 5729:, 5716:) 5653:) 5635:) 5599:) 5494:+O 5455:✉ 5402:) 5386:, 5365:) 5347:) 5326:) 5303:) 5267:) 5259:. 5257:no 5245:| 5243:HG 5230:) 5121:, 5117:, 5113:, 5109:, 5096:) 5056:) 5022:2 5005:. 4993:) 4975:) 4918:) 4739:) 4733:Go 4647:-- 4556:) 4528:) 4511:) 4494:) 4395:| 4392:Qb 4371:So 4359:| 4356:Qb 4329:) 4223:) 4191:) 4153:– 4120:– 4095:) 4064:) 4032:) 3993:) 3964:) 3877:) 3850:| 3848:HG 3831:So 3576:. 3550:90 3546:93 3501:PS 3479:) 3439:So 3358:) 3304:) 3266:) 3244:• 3189:• 3131:. 3098:) 3077:) 3060:) 3043:) 3015:ni 2995:() 2953:) 2930:) 2913:) 2880:) 2863:) 2823:) 2805:) 2782:ms 2779:or 2776:st 2773:nd 2770:Mi 2757:) 2741:) 2733:-- 2723:) 2619:y! 2491:2 2466:;) 2436:2 2420:) 2349:) 2332:) 2314:) 2273:) 2237:) 2229:. 2220:) 2212:? 2203:) 2185:32 2171:) 2088:) 1956:) 1940:xd 1888:X! 1846:) 1771:| 1764:40 1761:Mm 1758:. 1739:/ 1711:— 1683:) 1526:So 1422:. 1409:) 1209:) 1185:) 1134:• 1085:lu 1004:A: 989:A: 973:A: 916:A. 868:A: 858:| 856:HG 844:HG 832:A: 808:A. 756:A. 745:) 707:A. 697:9. 686:A. 676:8. 658:A. 648:7. 643:: 620:A. 614:6. 593:A. 578:5. 573:) 529:) 515:) 484:) 470:) 454:A: 431:) 413:) 409:· 405:· 380:←T 367:. 357:A: 338:A: 284:A: 278:3. 252:A: 246:2. 216:A: 210:1. 37:. 5953:) 5951:C 5949:- 5947:T 5945:( 5907:( 5867:/ 5863:( 5825:( 5806:( 5712:( 5649:( 5631:( 5595:( 5500:. 5426:) 5420:( 5398:( 5361:( 5343:( 5322:( 5299:( 5263:( 5226:( 5137:( 5092:( 5052:( 5036:) 5030:· 5024:( 4989:( 4971:( 4928:- 4926:T 4914:( 4848:. 4730:( 4651:- 4649:T 4566:- 4564:T 4552:( 4538:- 4536:T 4524:( 4507:( 4490:( 4325:( 4309:a 4307:c 4305:z 4303:a 4301:m 4217:( 4185:( 4091:( 4060:( 4028:( 3989:( 3960:( 3873:( 3809:) 3805:( 3769:) 3765:( 3746:– 3738:) 3734:( 3700:) 3696:( 3475:( 3348:( 3300:( 3281:* 3262:( 3248:) 3240:( 3160:5 3094:( 3073:( 3056:( 3039:( 3010:A 2948:· 2943:( 2926:( 2911:¶ 2909:( 2876:( 2859:( 2819:( 2801:( 2753:( 2737:( 2719:( 2670:) 2666:( 2633:« 2616:ɯ 2555:^ 2552:- 2549:^ 2545:\ 2505:) 2499:· 2493:( 2450:) 2444:· 2438:( 2416:/ 2412:( 2345:( 2328:( 2310:( 2294:- 2292:T 2271:t 2269:( 2233:( 2216:( 2199:( 2167:( 2144:~ 2084:( 2066:| 2045:. 2028:》 2022:《 1952:( 1842:( 1826:) 1820:( 1775:) 1767:( 1744:) 1734:T 1729:( 1709:L 1706:C 1678:· 1673:( 1655:) 1649:( 1632:) 1624:( 1491:) 1488:☎ 1485:( 1405:( 1355:✉ 1205:( 1181:( 1099:) 1094:· 1088:· 1082:· 1076:· 1070:· 1064:· 1057:· 1050:· 1044:· 1039:( 1029:. 741:( 569:( 525:( 511:( 480:( 466:( 427:/ 423:( 401:( 343:. 101:· 96:( 89:) 84:· 78:· 72:· 67:(

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/JamieS93 - Knowledge

Index