Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Joe Roe

4662:, I don't think that is necessarily true. Certainly there is point being civil, and bringing anger into any conversation often doesn't add anything, indeed it hinders it, and detracts from it. One of the properties of WP is we don't necessarily see the people we are talking too, we don't get to know them in the manner of face to face conversation, where we really know them, and learn their habits and whatnot. It is also property of WP, in that we are a volunteer force, where being uncivil can drive people away. But that is not always going to be the case. VR tech is new, very new, although old, and such it could be a case that in 10 or 15 years’ time, we could all be sitting in virtual room or rooms, where the physical and emotional attributes of the person are clearly represented in that environment. And it’s coming. So think your arguments need to apply with care. Anger is one of the primary drivers of humanity. And it drives creativity, in the purest form. Some of the most brilliant people, have been unnaturally surly and angry, as that is their nature, but it doesn't detract from their production of some of the most startling literature or poetry or science theory. Think of 5086:- like SoWhy, I shall probably end up supporting, because there are no major skeletons in evidence, and having the support of veteran good guys like Ritchie and Tony is a good indicator of competence. I do agree with the sentiment expressed above that the "speedy delete" on the Charlotte Devaney nomination was ill advised. Although process, policy and guidelines are great to keep our project well oiled, it strikes me as a little lazy to use a failure to follow process as a sole reason to vote delete in an AfD, and speedy at that, without apparently looking at the present status of the article and assessing it on its own merits. That said, we all make mistakes, there are differences of opinion, and all of us are in a learning curve, so based on the 650:. There seems to be a tendency for paid editors to reference bomb their articles to try and establish notability, especially if it has come through AfC (as new articles by paid editors should), therefore a detailed, source-by-source assessment of the level of coverage is needed. You also need to check that the sources are accurately represented—that the paid editor hasn't advertently or inadvertently put a "positive spin" on them―and do a thorough search for sources to make sure that positive and negative views of the subject are being given due weight. However, if as you say it's a GA-quality article with none of these problems, the outcome of the process shouldn't be different just because it was paid for. 5006:(leaning support): The CSD log is much shorter than I'd like for someone who wants to do NPP work, which raises concerns for how good Joe's grasp of A7 is (as well as the more obscure CSD criteria). I'm also not thrilled with the Q3 response, which just deals with dispute resolution experience rather than situations which may have caused Joe stress. I find poor responses like that to be a strong yellow flag for RfA candidates in my book because I see RfAs as analogous to job interviews; attention to detail and the like should be at their highest they ever will be. That said, I don't have serious concerns, and I am hopeful that responses to subsequent questions will cause me to move to support. —/ 2818:. No one is perfect, and a couple of CSD errors and some AfD votes that didn't go the consensus direction aren't enough to oppose. Participation is balanced, and heavy on the content side compared to many candidates, and also shows enough involvement in the WP and WT namespaces to indicate probable awareness of policies, what they say, and how policy works. Candidate is level-headed, and I don't see any reasons for concern. Overall, both productive and usually on the right side of policy interpretation. The answers to the questions above are satisfactory to me (though they're mostly about the same thing, and are not particularly difficult ones). 2739:. So this was a double-mistake by the candidate worth considering when judging his qualifications. That said, he did acknowledge his mistake and moderated his approach, both qualities one should look for in an admin. This, combined with trusting the nominators and finding nothing else concerning in his contributions, leads me to change my !vote to support. "Weak", however, because while I think the candidate will make a good addition to the admin corps, he did not really do much work in the areas CSD and PROD he wants to work in and thus it's hard to anticipate how he will handle the tools in these areas. Regards 662:

commercial venture. I wouldn't peer review them either. But that approach isn't effective in deletion venues. Proposing/declining an article for CSD or PROD, or participating in an AfD, always entails some work, and sometimes quite a lot of work, in reviewing the article. So in order to maintain the encyclopaedia, volunteers end up being forced to spend their time either helping or cleaning up after paid editors. My view is that paid editing is an increasingly significant systemic bias in Knowledge (XXG), and we need policy that can address it systemically. –

1247:- Adequate tenure and contributions, decent shape of the pie chart, clean block log, no indications of assholian tendencies. Seeking tools for AfD closing is a +1 for me, there are too many non-administrative closes. So how is that win-loss rate opining at AfD, that's the big question, isn't it? Voting Keep or Speedy Keep, he is 98 wins and 1 loss, voting Delete he is 123-10 (omitting Merge and Redirect results, which can be random). That's pretty fucking good work, pardon my French, especially doing that well with Keep votes in a Deletion-oriented venue. 831:, at least one editor has given it a detailed look over and concluded that it should not be kept. So to me it makes sense that making the case for keep is a bit more of an uphill battle. Fortunately, in my experience, if you make that case well then the vast majority of discussants are receptive to it. I do share your frustration with 'pile on' !votes that don't include a reasonable rationale – whether they're keeps or deletes. In closing AfDs as an admin, I would give them little to no weight when assessing the consensus. – 5180:, and have less than 15,000 edits to their name (my cut-off is at least 20,000 for an admin candidate). I'm very concerned that valuable but incomplete/malformed/etc. good-faith articles may get deleted by this user and that he may not perform the necessary investigations and have the necessary circumspection and sufficient CSD knowledge. If this RfA passes, if there is even a shred of any doubt in a CSD or AfD case, Joe should pass the case by and instead present it to a highly experienced CSD/AfD admin. 3014:: Words like "excellent temperament and communication style", echoed with comments of "temperament, and I think Joe has it in spades", is an admirable quality Knowledge (XXG) needs. I don't see the accolades reputiated. None of us, new or not, really wants to be hit with "assholian tendencies". I think "Mr. Joe" gave excellent answers to the questioned asked including honesty concerning paid editors. Any that have to work know that none of us get paid to do a bad job. Not all paid editors adhere to 821:

will loose bound until he proves it to the satisfaction of AFD participants. There is this inert feeling among Wikipedians that an editor that votes delete often is more likely to understand notability guidelines better than one that votes keep. All these sets a repulsive precedence that discourages good faith editors, hoping to vote keep from participating in an AFD discussion. Do you agree with all I've said? How will you as an admin create a balance to this?

756:. Why is Knowledge (XXG) different in this instance? We are in a period where the internet is still new, and these types of paid editing are necessarily a product of the internet environment where we live, where companies and other entities, are driven by marketing and branding. Lots of areas of WP need continual addressing, e.g. backlog areas, which is difficult and problematic for a volunter workforce in the long term. How does that reflect on your answer to 868:

lost. I can certainly think of many discussions that haven't "gone my way" over the years. Some convinced me to change my mind, others I still think I was in the right in. Either way, you just have to accept that it happens. We are a project governed by consensus and nobody will ever be in agreement with the consensus 100% of the time. If I came across an editor that was very bothered by a particular close, that's what I'd try to get across to them. –

585:

myself. However, the Ukrainian article was at least partially referenced, and none of the sections that didn't have inline citations struck me as controversial or likely to be challenged. In leaving it there my thinking was that the translation was a better starting point for improvement than a bare stub, but I take the criticism that contributing inadequately referenced material is not good practice whatever the source/content.

4543:

listed as Margaret Ursula Jones, which contains the classic text "in 1956 they began working as a freelance archaeologist for the Ministry of Works". There is no explanation of why M.U. Jones is credited with this work, but the contribution from her husband was submerged beneath a mere "they". Tom Jones -- the husband -- remains a redlink. This sort of behavior seems, to me, to be odd. The candidate may be able to explain it.

2233:. I have a very high opinion of both of the nominators, and everything I see here makes me trust the candidate. I take particular note of the fact that, when presented with criticism of his positions at (just a few) AfDs, he accepted that he had made mistakes and did not try to dig in his heels. I never expect admins (or anyone else) to never make mistakes, but I expect them to be open to changing their minds. -- 476:, if nobody except the nominator had participated, or perhaps if there had been one or two other delete !votes that were unsubstantial 'pile ons', I would evaluate it as a PROD. That is, I'd check that the nomination was reasonable and uncontroversial, make sure nobody had previously objected to deletion (either in the AfD, by declining a PROD, or on the article's talk page), and if so close it as "soft delete, 4972:

couldn't be sure, I thought it was likely that it was another attempt to recreate the same article. However, I overlooked the discrepancy between the 2016 information and the original deletion in 2014, which I agree merited a fresh consideration of the subject's notability. Similarly, with Lorenzo Penna, I overlooked that he'd played in Serie A – I remember slapping my forehead when

861:

is run due to the direction in the discretion of functionaries, probably because it didn't go thier way. As an admin, if you're to encourage a genuinely dedicated editor that have decided to completely retire because of incidents with functionaries, when I say incidents, I mean closures not going their way. What would you say to such editor to make him/her remain commited?

4742: 2344:

two instances where another editor was angry about some edit he had done,(and done appropriately) and he responded to their angry screeds by cited the policies and reasoning behind his edits, explaining clearly why his edit was called for, and worked to calm the other person down. I think he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrators.

5307:

observations in the last few months, I wanted to know the view of a prospective administrator on some of our dedicated editors on good standing retiring because of closures not going their way. I wouldn't ask further questions on this though, but I just want to make it clear that my second question was unanswered or better-still misunderstood.

4341:: I see trees of paid editors trying to obey by the policies and benefitting the encyclopedia by rapidly bringing up company name changes, relocations etc., and maybe I miss a forest of undercover POV-pushing - but I infer from Q9 that they intend to treat paid articles fairly at NPP, which is all that I need to support fully the mop-granting. 1213:- I'm finding what I look for in an administrator dropping rapidly from "high hopes" to "please just be an okay person". In this case though, my opinion of Joe Roe rockets past "okay" and settles around "deeply impressed". I'm impressed at their content, their clue and their civility. An obvious candidate from two experienced nominators -- 1925:- I like his article contributions, and reading through the previous comments I'm glad to see there are no glaring issues with his work in the past. If there's only one issue we can find in all the years he's had editing here (that one AfD which imo he is justified for) I take that as a positive sign that he's an all around good editor. 2292:. I have never interacted with "Joe", however his answers to the questions submitted are very good and gives me the feeling that "Joe" is very sincere. "Joe" may have committed some minor mistakes while editing in the past, so what? haven't we all? We learn through our mistakes and learning is a continuous life process. 349:, I offered a third opinion which I believe helped bring a long-running dispute to a consensus. When I have felt it necessary to comment on other editors' conduct (and I do think that needs to happen from time to time), I try to do so in as direct, polite, and non-judgemental a way possible. An example of that would be 4103:: Pile on. No experience with this editor, appears to be a positive influence. I prefer when an editor does make a mistake they have no qualms about admitting it and seeing their own part in the error, as this person seems to do. Perfectly reasonable answers. Happy to have another qualified mop-wielder. 5043:

and you'll see a marked decrease after we cleared the NPP backlog of autoconfirmed submissions. Joe wasn't super involved with CSD before ACTRIAL, that is true, but it is nearly impossible to rack up the numbers that you used to anyway. We need to lower the bar a bit in terms of CSD now that they are

3285:

admins for whom I have great respect for their work on both RfA and NPP. The two 'Oppose' votes are entirely without substance. One clearly does not know what they are talking about, while nobody, not even me, gets every AfD vote or closure right - but this cited instance was a perfectly

2907:

Joe Roe is a very good content creator and a very good participant at AfD and the Teahouse. Perhaps Joe is a bit more forceful in opposing paid editing than I am at this time, but his answer to Q9 is so clearly and persuasively written that I am convinced that he will be fair and effective in dealing

860:

As an administrator, having a good temperament is never enough. The community requires admins to be able to make sharp decisions in difficult situations. In the last few months, there have been a number of dedicated editors, with no conduct issues that seem to have lost faith with the way the project

661:

by checking and improving their work for them. Currently, editors can try to counter that by opting out of doing that kind of work. For example, I choose not to review AfC submissions by paid editors, regardless of their quality, simply because I'm not interested in donating my time to someone else's

584:

I'm not entirely satisfied with it, no. I would have liked to have chased down the references and made sure everything was inline-cited, as I would if I were writing an article from scratch. Unfortunately I don't think my access to the sources or my ability to read Ukrainian is good enough to do that

529:

The body text does not contain a claim of significance, but the title of the source cited does: the subject was "honored with historical marker". I would therefore decline the A7. Following up on the reference, it outlines a decent case for notability, and Google and GBooks searches turn up a number

5245:

I think it was probably just intended to highlight the dichotomy between your current stance and the one you took less than three weeks ago, in which the candidate had little admnistrative experience (but luckilly the fact that that particular RfA "require pragmatism" made it OK), and where "hanging

4343:

For the record, I totally disagree with Q9's answer where it implies that references from paid editor drafts should not be assumed to support the claims they are inlined to - I accept that newbies' articles should be scrutinized for all kinds of fault, and I accept that paid drafts should be treated

2343:

I spent some time looking through his AFD input, his talk page archive, and his contributions early, middle, and recently in his editing career. I looked at some of the ninety-something articles he created. I was impressed with his writing, his wiki-gnoming, and his knowledge of archaeology. I found

919:

is most useful for cutting through arbitrary procedural details when the outcome is uncontroversial and commonsensical. Beyond that, I see it as an important safety valve that stops us turning into a full-blown bureaucracy, but when you have mature and flexible policies, it shouldn't be necessary to

701:

I can't see the content of the draft, but on the face of it I agree with the delete !voters. There's no reason to keep a draft that has been deleted and declined so many times, and which has no reasonable chance of improvement because its creator has a COI and has been blocked. Your own reasoning on

158:

My interactions with Joe have primarily came from working at NPP and AfD: Joe is consistently one of the most level-headed voices in these areas, contributing not only in working on the front lines, but also to meta conversations about how to improve processes and moving Knowledge (XXG) forward. His

4971:

were mistakes on my part. In Charlotte Devaney, my thought process was that it was a create-protected page, had been deleted four times (three under G4), declined at AfC nine times, and finally moved out of draftspace out-of-process (circumventing the create protection). In that context, although I

4455:

I'd never heard of Joe before, but after looking into his stats and stuff and reading his responses to the questions here, I've come away very impressed. I don't see any reasonable potential for intentional misuse of the tools, and I believe that handing Joe Roe the mop will result in a net benefit

867:

I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you're asking here. I must have missed the incidents that you're alluding to. I do think it's very important, if you want to be a long-term contributor to this project, to get away from the mentality that AfDs (or any discussions) are battles to be won or

166:

While all of this is important, the thing that I care about most in an administrator is temperament, and I think Joe has it in spades. Having seen him interact with new editors and experienced editors in any number of contentious environments, I have never seen him act anyway other than kind, and I

154:

It is my great pleasure to present Joe Roe to the community for consideration to become an administrator. Joe has been around in some capacity since 2005, and has become particularly active again since April 2016. His content work tends to focus on archeology, and he has created 60 new articles and

5306:

It seem as though Mr Joe didn't get my narrative. My first and second questions are distinct statements. And the second one wasn't about me, neither was it specifically for closures at AFDs, but all form of decision-making that requires some form of closure from a functionary. This was based on my

2864:

I don't believe I've had the opportunity to meet Joe, but after reviewing Joe's contributions and other information, I believe Joe would do well with the tools. Solid track record with AfDs, edits and contributions. As many above have stated, Joe seems to be well mannered and even tempered in many

344:

With content disputes, my approach is to keep the discussion focused on what policy and the sources say, regardless of any personal disagreements or conduct issues that might be present. I find this helps me shift my own perspective on a discussion away from "conflict" and towards problem-solving,

238:

deletion sorting lists. I usually try to focus my work at NPP on improving articles rather than deleting them, but I am confident that I have a strong enough understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines to handle CSD and PROD requests. The tools will also help with things like complicated

4542:

might be explained by some misunderstanding, but we are offered no such explanation. Can it be explained by inexperience? Apparently not -- this is a 2017 vote. The candidate would like to work in NPP and AfD areas, so such a huge blind spot is a problem. The candidate's strongest contribution is

1774:

I think I have never interacted with Joe before. But I have seen his work regularly, mostly through NPP/R. Joe has a clear understanding of the policies, and guidelines. He is polite, and level headed. I see no issues. Some would say is CSD log short (one editor in neutral section has raised this

820:

As a frequent !voter on AFDs, who is usually more on the inclusionist side, one thing I have noticed is that it is easy to vote delete on an AFD without a reasonable rationale (or just typing fails GNG allover the place), and no one will see issues with it, but when an editor votes keep, all hell

623:

All else being equal, should an article be treated any differently (e.g. when considering deletion, protection, peer review, etc.) if it were substantially edited directly by a paid editor? Assume that the editor has made a declaration on her user page that satisfies the WMF Terms of Use, and the

786:

scheme. But that is a very different kettle of fish to a company hiring someone from Fiverr to write a 'profile' of them, or a CEO telling someone in their marketing department to touch up their biography. I just don't see how that kind of commercialism is compatible with our mission to create a

781:

about how the community want the paid editing policy to evolve, and my response to Feminist was just my personal opinion. But I would say that your analogy to Renaissance art doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation here on Knowledge (XXG). I think it'd be great if Wikipedians, like

706:

somebody else wanted to adopt and source it. But since that didn't happen, I think the delete close was the right call. I disagree with the keep !voter and don't think we should retain unencyclopaedic and unsalvageable material in draftspace simply because it is not yet eligible for a G13.

91:

where he put forward some good arguments, to the extent that I decided to move the article into his userspace so it could be cleaned up, instead of deleting it. I've looked at some of his other AfDs, and again I've been impressed at the level of communication on discussions like

4159:

Coming at this a bit late, about a candidate i don't seem to have run across previously; nevertheless, the opposes are unconvincing, the answers to questions are convincing, and there is no reason i can see that flipping the bit for this candidate would be an error. Happy days,

4141:

Experienced, has clue, works well with others, good answers, good understanding of policy, no negatives. Good temperament, civil, which is very important for an administrator. Another administrator working at AfD will be a positive. Trustworthiness definitely established.

2028:

About a week ago I was looking at something you said, and happened to hoverlink your name, where I was surprised to see you weren't an admin. I appreciate your work at the teahouse and help desk, where I believe you have helped me a couple of times. While I have

638:. This means that shortcuts that come from assuming the good faith of an editor (e.g. accepting that offline sources say what they say they do) can no longer be relied upon. In particular, in my experience, paid-for articles must be thoroughly checked for 4492:--We have not crossed our paths before (except in an AfC review case, days prior to the launch of this RFA) but on reviewing the contributions of the user, he seems to be a fairly level-headed and reasonable pedian with ahigh competence level.So, why not? 589:

was my first attempt at translating an article and the choice of topic was rather idiosyncratic (I've spent quite a lot of time there). In future I'd look for higher-quality (better referenced) source articles to translate, as I did in my next attempt,

3665:

Comprehensive answers demonstrate communication skills, is able to admit fault, has an established reputation as a valuable member of the Knowledge (XXG) userbase who is clearly ready for the toolset that will enable even more positive contributions.

2973:

As others have said, Joe is a good content editor, and although there are a tiny percentage of blips I don't see those nearly as important as the good work and attitude he's shown. I also have no doubt that he will learn from the comments made here.

4569:— The user wanting to be involved in AfD's as an admin is scary, as it seems like he is not completely sure of the guidelines and rules of Wiki from previous situations. He is civil as many people supporting him say, but that doesn't mean anything. 87:) – I'm pleased to put forward Joe as a candidate. He's made substantial contributions in both article and project space, has a good working knowledge of policy, and has an excellent temperament and communication style. I first came across him at 3375:. No cause for concern, seems like a net positive as an admin. I also appreciate their answer to Q6 as the person who advanced the proposal to overhaul that section. The answer is frankly better than many current admins would give. ~ 3528:

as two previously uninvolved editors invited to resolve a heated situation. Joe and I disagreed on some details but I found him quite sensible and quite pleasant to work with. I will be happy to see him pick up the admin buttons.

88: 2563:!votes is IMHO silly - Ofcourse they're not going to be bang on perfect (who is?) - Like all admins here Joe will probably make a few mistakes too and as I said no one's perfect, anyway I'm not seeing any concerns so as such 436:

As sock-puppetry is by definition a deliberate attempt to deceive, I would say that it tends to be far more disruptive than people who simply choose not to log in. My interactions with IP editors have usually been positive.

4625:

important to avoid unnecessary flareups and drama, which Knowledge (XXG) seems so full of these days. A user who can't control their tempers or emotions and have the block button at their disposal should raise a red flag.

1275:- Generally, for what I said at his ORCP. This is an editor who has experience dealing with content and provides in-depth and reflective comments at AFD -- even if it is not always keeping pace with the rest of the herd. 5277:

I would like to highlight the fact that I said that it is difficult and not impossible. Megalibrarygirl gave me enough reason to support in looking through her editing and contributions; I did not get that from Joe.

5174: 4964: 4902: 4531: 3018:

and I agree "extra scrutiny" is a mandate. The ANI was spot on, and he admits mistakes. At this time there are ninty-six other comments with only two that are opposed (one of those questionable) and one that is a

256: 2726:

but coincidentally, I had declined a A7 tagging from the candidate for the same article just a few days before because it contained clear claims of significance, including winning multiple championships and

2033:

problem with you planning to stick to AFD and NPP, I do wish you would get a bit more experience in counter vandalism (the first, last, and only time you reported someone to AIV was in 2011). Enjoy mopping,

4937:

without considering other guidelines that were mentioned. I'll sit here for now until I had some time to check more of his contributions but if that's all I can find, I expect I'll move to support. Regards

4328:

of such mistakes. I will mention for the record that the answer to Q5 leaves me a bit underwhelmed - it nominally answers the question, but you wouldn't answer "which is worse, ice cream or the plague" by

231: 105: 418:

In your personal opinion, who does more disruptive editing to wiki? The IPs or the socks/sleepers? Note: I am a regular IP editor with dynamic IPs. I will ask one more question after you answer this one.

4689:- Can you provide diffs of how " completely sure of the guidelines and rules of Wiki", Also out of the 88 support !votes only 2 editors have so far mentioned the world "civil" ..... You may want to read 1951:

A cursory look at their editing history did not turn up anything that would give me pause (or worse). JR looks qualified and I trust the judgement of the nominators. No red flags + Clue = net positive.

1806:

Don't know the lad, but what has been written and answered seems promising. A couple of silly mistakes at AfD but I think they have been pointed out; he can take note and learn from those complaints.

4909:

when the article for discussion contained noteworthy information that could not have been in the previously deleted version from 2014 (namely receiving Gold certification in 2016). He also nominated

827:

I can't say I've had the same experience with AfD, no. I am someone who goes there with the intention of !voting keep as often as I can too; but if an article ends up at AfD, assuming the nominator

4901:

for now (leaning support). Seeing Ritchie and Tony banding together to nominate someone seemed like a clear sign to support but a first look at some of the AFD participation makes me hesitate. In

4976:

pointed it out! They were both learning experiences for me. Since then I've tried to be more cautious about nominations in SNG-covered topics that I don't know a lot about (especially sport). –

369:

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

362: 2616:

I disagree with the candidate's view that the policy regarding paid editing should be tightened, but it's no reason to deny adminship. He would be able to put the admin toolset to good use.

2890:. I wasn't originally going to vote, but then I saw his extremely thoughtful answer to the questions on paid editing. That is exactly the thought process we should be looking for in admins 4344:

as more likely to bend the RS guidelines and whatnot than a random newbie article, but I do not think paid drafts should be assumed to be more fact-challenged than a random newbie article.

5135:

Knowledge (XXG) needs editors (and administrators) of all shapes and sizes. Some people have different focuses than others, that doesn't mean they're any less valuable or knowledgeable.

230:

I would like to use the admin tools to extend my work in two areas: AfD and NPP. I think that I've spent enough time at AfD to be able to close discussions reliably, particularly on the

167:

think this combined with his levelheaded demeanor and knowledge of policy will make him a true asset to the admin corps. I hope you will agree with me and join me in supporting his RfA.

100:, where he put forward useful insights, even though consensus didn't go his way. That's not to say Joe doesn't match consensus at AfD a lot; on the contrary, he frequently does, such as 5107:

Nice balance at AfD (a positive) but creating huge numbers of stubs rather than full articles, and showing spurts of activity over the years is not impressive. Leaving me on the wall.

1380:. A great record at AfD, and with a reasonably red (if sparse) CSD log. CSD and PROD aren't as necessary as they were in the days before ACTRIAL, but AfD could always use more help. — 1377: 308:

The reason I got involved in behind-the-scenes areas like AfD and AfC was the opportunity to encourage new editors and branch out to topics I wouldn't otherwise have edited. I found

97: 4558: 915:

at AfD reasonably often, because there's no reason to waste volunteer time when the nomination is erroneous and/or the result is a foregone conclusion. And in general I think

4120:

Almost missed this. I support based on his response in the AfDs mentioned by the nominator, and his answers to questions. I'm sure this user will make a good sysop. Regards,

5214: 3023:. The comments in this support section are evidence this editor has a very high degree of community as well as self-standards to uphold, and I think he will do just that. 4930: 692: 235: 93: 338:

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?

5331: 4968: 4910: 4337:

or make a paraphrase of it. Also, I have a different philosophy on the paid editing problem - maybe that is because as a Help Desk/Teahouse regular, I am subject to

1121: 2148:- I'm not sure if I've ever encountered Joe before, but I get the sense that he can be trusted with the responsibilities that come with being an administrator. 1870:

Not a username I'm familiar with, but having done a bit of research, that's to my shame. Looks like an excellent candidate, I have no hesitation in supporting.

1116: 657:

be treated, I personally would like to see policy tightened up in that regard. I'm keenly aware that the extra scrutiny I outlined above effectively means that

312:

at AfC, for example, and worked with its creator to bring it up to a solid B-class, and submit it to DYK. In terms of articles "rescued" from AfD, I'd point to

163:

was how high his accuracy was, especially considering that he has a relatively high percentage of keep votes, when most AfD's have historically trended delete.

5197:- I find it difficult to support a RfA when the candidate has seemingly little to no administrative maintenance experience (hanging out at AfD is not enough). 1500: 5210: 3411:: Those opposing are focusing on a couple of mistakes, which everyone (even admins) is entitled to make from time to time. Seems like a safe pair of hands. 2053: 2056:. Although he expressed rather impassioned view, it shows he has the 'integrity of the project' at heart, and that's good quality of an admin in my view. 159:

comments in AfD discussions are always well thought out, policy-based, and insightful. Something that I also found very impressive while looking over his

5349: 4129: 1601: 1352: 977: 217:

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

4595:

important- fundamental, even- and when "many people" here agree on something, that's often the creation of a consensus. Which is also fundamental :) —

1823:. Don't think I've worked with him directly, but I've seen him around. His Answers and nominations give a good indication that he is fit for the role. 5173:. I'm very concerned when someone wants to work in CSD requests, NPP, and AfD, when they don't seem to fully understand CSD (as noted for example re: 4621:. There are many uncivil editors here on Knowledge (XXG), and I certainly do not want them to have the mop. Being friendly, calm, and level-headed is 1527:

based on the reputations of the co-nominators and the nominee's answer to my question. His percentage of edits to mainspace could be higher, though.

783: 1585: 4822: 3648:

No concerns from me. A review of their responses here and editing history shows a clueful and level-headed editor who will make a fine admin.--

3118:

An articulate and fair-minded participant in discussions; has a high proportion of AFD "keep" votes and nearly all those articles do get kept

2216:. Seems level-headed from my interactions with them, and appears to have a good handle on assessing consensus and deletion rationale at AfD. 1059: 3464:- appears to be a great candidate for the job, and his responses clearly show his ability to keep on task and not take things personally. - 1217: 964: 420: 519:

criteria "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance". If you were an administrator who has to decide on

5040: 3689: 1607: 1111: 1007: 33: 17: 5262: 4778: 4603: 4125: 2433: 2386: 1001: 259:

for improving our coverage of women in archaeology, which we've been making steady progress on. My work on that has included creating

2829: 2669: 2422:

two bad AfD votes (out of over 300) in the past year is not a reason to oppose, in fact that accuracy level is a reason to support.

1330:. Can we please stop focusing on tiny mistakes, and evaluate the editor as a whole? For everyone one of those AfD errors, there are 740:. Why do you say that paid editing is increasingly significant systemic bias in Knowledge (XXG)? Consider paid work has led to the 131:

status. He ticks all my boxes for what I want to see in an administrator, and I wholeheartedly endorse this request for the tools.

3578:

for his ability to admit mistakes, for his thoughtful answers to the questions, and for the unreasonableness of the oppose votes.

5224: 4833: 4727: 3952: 1616: 1364: 1186: 139: 2475: 2373: 1833: 971: 520: 350: 5018: 3507:

Users like Joe who contribute regularly to the Teahouse should do well with the communication responsibilities of adminship.

2622: 1911: 1746: 1592: 3544:, based on review; note: I hope they will work to increase article content creation and not just stubs, for the most part. 2511:

Excellent content work. A couple of blips dug up below, but they don't worry me too much (per Carrite & others above).

389:

No. I feel strongly that paid editing is damaging to the encyclopaedia and not consistent with the ethos of the project. –

5255: 4804: 4771: 4748: 4596: 4121: 3799: 1876: 1811: 1031: 957: 530:

of solid sources. So I would probably also expand the article a little and add additional sources to make that clearer. –

276: 84: 4419:

Don't know much about the editor but I like the answers to the questions - always a good thing - and the strong noms. --

3040:

for a candidate with a good balance of content work, temperament and clue who shares my reservations about paid editing.

1157: 898: 4493: 4324:- the AfD-incident based opposes hold little weight in my view, since they show a couple of mistakes but nowhere near a 2732: 653:

That is at least how I would treat them under the current consensus on paid editing. If you are asking how I think they

160: 563:, for which you created the article by translating the page from Ukrainian Knowledge (XXG). Are you satisfied with the 5063:

Leaning support, but not thoroughly impressed with the content work. Q3 response is also a little weak in my opinion.

5048: 3494: 3194: 2496: 2261: 1384: 1360: 1147: 1016: 3811:. Per noms, and Joe's thoughtful answers to the questions. I believe he will be a net positive for the admin corps. – 3180:

I found. However, your contributions and understanding of policy shows you're well-qualified. I'm especially fond of

634:

I think that contributions by paid editors need to be treated with extra scrutiny in any venue. Their COI creates an

782:

Michelangelo, had the opportunity to get financial support for their regular editing work from "patrons" – like the

559:

Greetings, Joe, and thanks for offering to serve as an administrator. In reviewing your contributions I came across

4644: 4443: 4288:- an 89% accuracy on users AFD record shows that they knowledgeable enough to be trusted with the adminship tools. 4243: 2136: 1280: 702:

the probability that the draft could be salvaged is thoughtful, and would have persuaded me to leave the door open

317: 3582:, gone are the days when a good person could be voted into adminship without silly unsubstantiated accusations. — 3286:

legitimate and I would quite possibly have deleted this via G4 even with the ability to view the deleted version.

1085: 4293: 3842: 3745: 3566: 2788: 1052: 1398:

Moderate person, that can "administrate" himself. Maybe, will be a good enough as an administrator for another--

1309:: Ability to maintain one of the best temperaments consistently in contentious situations is beyond impressive. 4811: 4755: 4461: 4058: 3795: 2706: 2533: 2390: 2314: 1977: 1807: 1106: 5087: 4926: 2736: 1356: 424: 1101: 4475:

Had a look at Joe's data and responses, seems good. AfD shows he has a clue, seems civil. Hand him the mop.

3933: 3919: 3512: 3160: 2607: 1779: 1532: 1297: 911:

or supported its use, but I'm drawing a blank, so I apologise that this answer is a little vague. I invoke

635: 5185: 5140: 4480: 4311: 4179: 3979: 3724: 3671: 3562: 3335: 3187: 2427: 2382: 2364: 2331: 2297: 2221: 2167: 1935: 1486: 1452: 1201: 313: 172: 2559:- This editor has made 300 !votes to AFD (and might I add has 90% where matched result) so opposing over 2469: 2250:. On a cursory look through contributions, I see lots of good work, plus the ability to admit mistakes. — 778: 4675: 4439: 4425: 4376: 3533: 3399: 3143: 2980: 2852: 2826: 2662: 2642: 2410: 2132: 2121: 2009: 1992: 1957: 1686: 1657: 1436: 1276: 1226: 1131: 765: 572: 288: 260: 124: 5330:

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

3719:

A candidate that _________ couldn't find a reason to oppose? Let's just IAR and make him a bureaucrat.

2895: 1027: 473: 112: 4797:

has not even bothered to respond to these comments is a testament that RfA is a good place to throw a

4196: 1326:- no concerns. I am also very unconcerned with finding 3 cases of bad AfD votes or nominations out of 1080: 5222: 5035:

Joe tends to take stuff to AfD if it is marginal or borderline. I'd also like to point out that with

4831: 4725: 4289: 4041: 3880: 3838: 3765: 3737: 3253: 3050: 2784: 2238: 2082: 1403: 1184: 1126: 1045: 889: 753: 346: 137: 5036: 4798: 4794: 4686: 4570: 4334: 5316: 5286: 5271: 5239: 5226: 5205: 5189: 5165: 5157: 5144: 5130: 5116: 5099: 5078: 5071: 5054: 5032: 5024: 5007: 4987: 4951: 4922: 4880: 4835: 4816: 4787: 4760: 4729: 4706: 4679: 4670:. Both of them were quite impossible to work with, but people still got on with working with them. 4650: 4612: 4586: 4552: 4518: 4500: 4484: 4467: 4457: 4447: 4430: 4410: 4398: 4394: 4379: 4361:"Show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I will show you one who has never tried anything." 4351: 4316: 4297: 4280: 4263: 4246: 4234: 4217: 4209: 4200: 4183: 4166: 4151: 4133: 4112: 4095: 4078: 4062: 4054: 4045: 4028: 3998: 3981: 3957: 3938: 3924: 3901: 3897: 3884: 3867: 3846: 3815: 3803: 3786: 3782: 3769: 3752: 3728: 3711: 3694: 3675: 3657: 3640: 3623: 3606: 3586: 3570: 3553: 3536: 3516: 3499: 3470: 3456: 3439: 3403: 3386: 3367: 3351: 3337: 3321: 3295: 3273: 3258: 3238: 3217: 3198: 3164: 3147: 3130: 3110: 3094: 3081: 3059: 3032: 3006: 2999: 2983: 2965: 2937: 2935: 2921: 2914: 2899: 2882: 2873: 2856: 2839: 2809: 2792: 2775: 2752: 2710: 2702: 2689: 2671: 2646: 2628: 2611: 2594: 2580: 2551: 2537: 2529: 2520: 2500: 2479: 2456: 2452: 2439: 2414: 2397: 2367: 2353: 2335: 2318: 2310: 2301: 2284: 2265: 2242: 2225: 2208: 2190: 2171: 2154: 2140: 2124: 2106: 2089: 2068: 2043: 2013: 1996: 1979: 1970: 1961: 1943: 1917: 1881: 1862: 1848: 1839: 1815: 1798: 1788: 1766: 1750: 1727: 1710: 1707: 1698: 1677: 1661: 1644: 1639: 1622: 1553: 1549: 1536: 1519: 1507: 1491: 1472: 1468: 1455: 1440: 1423: 1407: 1390: 1368: 1343: 1339: 1318: 1314: 1301: 1284: 1266: 1239: 1214: 1205: 1188: 931: 879: 842: 802: 769: 718: 673: 605: 576: 541: 491: 448: 428: 400: 207: 176: 141: 63: 4918: 4914: 3632: 2723: 828: 477: 5161: 4998: 4213: 4192: 4147: 4091: 3994: 3910: 3828: 3707: 3684: 3583: 3508: 3317: 3212: 3156: 3104: 2958: 2625: 2603: 2590: 2102: 2064: 2023: 1903: 1740: 1694: 1564: 1528: 1293: 375: 658: 643: 116: 4006:- Responses to the questions leave me confident that this user will make a good administrator. 1775:

doubt), but Joe has shown his understanding of deletion policies through other contributions. —

567:

you edited? Would you go about this differently if you created the page today, and if so, how?

5181: 5136: 5112: 5095: 4982: 4548: 4476: 4406:, I don't see any evidence that this user would misuse the tools. Opposes are unconvincing. 4307: 4255: 4230: 4175: 4108: 3966: 3860: 3720: 3667: 3636: 3619: 3603: 3549: 3432: 3360: 3328: 3291: 3125: 3090: 3075: 2698: 2637:

Experienced editor. Create some more talk /search/ pages! Good job. Hope you get the tools. --

2516: 2423: 2378: 2361: 2327: 2293: 2274: 2217: 2201: 2179:: Although some editors have found concerns, they are not enough for me to not support this. — 2163: 1926: 1874: 1857: 1481: 1449: 1262: 1252: 1197: 951: 926: 874: 837: 797: 713: 668: 600: 536: 503: 486: 458: 443: 395: 280: 202: 189: 168: 148: 78: 4934: 3015: 912: 647: 5312: 4963:

You asked if I would respond above, and I'm happy to do so. In retrospect, I would say both

4671: 4516: 4420: 4364: 3530: 3452: 3395: 3347: 3139: 3028: 2975: 2891: 2866: 2848: 2821: 2770: 2660: 2638: 2406: 2349: 2152: 2116: 2005: 1988: 1953: 1653: 1432: 1417: 761: 728: 683: 568: 551: 321: 284: 4690: 3225: 2653: 2114:

because Knowledge (XXG) needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive.

916: 908: 788: 5217: 4945: 4875: 4826: 4720: 4037: 4023: 3947: 3876: 3761: 3525: 3490: 3247: 3041: 2805: 2746: 2492: 2257: 2234: 2077: 1399: 1179: 741: 586: 560: 268: 264: 193: 132: 101: 4906: 4851: 1499:

per nom, and because he has created a reasonable number of articles and some OK content.

625: 516: 128: 3478:- WP:HERE, WP:NETPOSITIVE, WP:CIVIL, WP:CLUE, plus candidate understands WP:CONSENSUS. 3246:- both history and responses to questions show somebody worthy of the Mop-and-Bucket. -- 5125: 5065: 4694: 4638: 4407: 4389: 3893: 3812: 3778: 3229: 2994: 2931: 2909: 2568: 2465: 2448: 2038: 1826: 1631: 1578: 1545: 1464: 1351:

Has been around since 2005 and well versed in policy has created over 80 articles and

1335: 1310: 1237: 745: 639: 5343: 5231:

That's great but doesn't do anything to show me why I should support this candidate.

4973: 4667: 4338: 4276: 4162: 4143: 4087: 3990: 3824: 3703: 3465: 3447:: Well rounded candidate, good posture and enough experience to get the admin tools. 3376: 3304: 3271: 3207: 2946: 2719: 2617: 2405:

eminently qualified content creator who will be a clear net positive with the tools.

2098: 2060: 2004:

Any concerns I had have been taken care of by the candidate's answer to my question.

1969:: I don't see any issues and can be a highly trusted editor. Good luck with the mop. 1890: 1736: 1690: 1670: 1516: 1334:

good contributions. Admins should be held to a high standard, but not perfection. --

757: 737: 615: 591: 292: 57: 5121:

I saw the spurts as well, but figured that 5 solid years (3 and 2) was still good.

5108: 5091: 4977: 4544: 4346: 4226: 4104: 3855: 3837:

I don't see anything here that makes me think Joe would act poorly with the tools.

3736:

I've seen them at work at Indo-European migrations related articles; solid editor.

3615: 3596: 3545: 3412: 3303:- Happy to support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Thank you for volunteering. 3287: 3181: 3119: 3070: 2684: 2546: 2512: 2181: 1871: 1760: 1258: 1248: 947: 921: 869: 832: 792: 708: 663: 595: 531: 481: 438: 390: 325: 309: 197: 74: 4086:- Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. 1152: 2447:

Professionalism is critical for adminship, and Joe Roe has a record of civility.

1652:-- good contributions and suitable temperament; would be a value to the project. 1431:- No reason to oppose the candidate, and every reason to support the candidate. 5308: 5279: 5232: 5198: 4821:

In a nutshell, the oppose is probably because Nikolaiho clashed with Joe Roe at

4509: 3448: 3024: 2761: 2345: 2149: 852: 812: 255:

I am most proud of my content creation work. In particular, last year I started

4591:

No offence, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. Being civil

901:

in Articles for deletion discussions and other discussions on Knowledge (XXG)?

5251: 4958: 4940: 4859: 4663: 4007: 3649: 3479: 2801: 2741: 2487: 2252: 1719: 1669:- experienced editor and will be a good addition to the group of admins. 271:. Other than that, I would say my most substantial contributions have been to 5324:

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

3359:- Glad to give my support. This user will definitely make an excellent admin. 89:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history

5122: 4655: 4627: 4072: 2035: 1571: 1231: 749: 123:. He's done a fair bit of writing for the project too, particularly getting 1856:- I see no issues. Seems to be a highly qualified candidate. Best of luck. 4272: 3394:: a good, well-rounded content contributor who should make a fine admin. 3266: 2760:, clearly would be an asset to have the mop in the hands of this editor. 2097:

Strong candidate. The nominations (and the nominators) are persuasive. --

5178: 5175:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination)

4903:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination)

4532:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination)

3264:

I see nothing to make me think that the candidate would abuse the tools

2602:, experienced editor, excellent to see more assistance in afd and afc. 272: 239:

moves and history merges which not infrequently come up at NPP and AfC.

4719:

is indicative of what Nikolaiho thinks the deletion policy should be.

4305:- Supporting for agreeable stance towards paid editing and experience 1569:

Wishing the best for Joe Roe. I do not see any issues on WP and AfD. —

1515:- I've worked with Joe a number of times and think he would do great. 897:

Hi Joe Roe, in your opinion when (if at all) is it appropriate to use

121:

this response which agreed that a failed submission should have passed

5334:

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

3965:- There are areas for improvement, but none that amount to problems. 3875:- Seems a level-headed individual who can be trusted with the tools. 2528:- Excellent word, both in content creation and admin related things. 1292:

Collegial, able, measured candidate, who gives no cause for concern.

752:

and innumerable other artistic works, worthy of artistic merit, e.g.

466:

In what situations would you close an AfD discussion as soft delete?

3702:- Good answers to questions, especially on speedy and AFD decisions. 3016:"put edits through peer review instead of editing articles directly" 907:

I've been trying to think of concrete examples of when I've invoked

5039:, CSDable articles are actually rather rare now. Have a look at my 1685:. Polite, helpful, and an asset to the project. To create and take 1030:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 480:

applies". Otherwise, I would relist or close it as no consensus. –

3599:

Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!}

1037: 296: 5090:

principle I don't yet see a problem with giving them the bit. —

1544:

on the strength of the nominatorswho I have great confidence in.

4053:- Experienced. Qualified. Likely to be a plus with admin tools. 1758:

Useful contributor to the project, will do well with the tools.

3155:

per noms. And 14,500+ edits is plenty enough experience for me.

2735:, that led to the AFD ending in keep because the subject meets 1041: 4225:

I don't see any problems, appears trustworthy and beneficial.

3932:, responses to questions show a fair degree of cluefulness. -- 1376:

While we haven't always agreed, and while opinionated, Joe is

249:

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

3683:

Can't find any reason to object. We need more sysops at AFD.

2908:

with paid editing. We need more administrators like Joe Roe.

2881:- NPP experience is a plus! Level-headed secures it for me. 183:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

5177:

even if he now admits his error), have a very brief CSD log

5031:

I think that this stems more from caution than anything else

3172:- Even though you were correct on policy, you were a little 2275: 3794:. I can't really say any more than all those people above. 2198:

Sensible deportment, balanced experience, logical answers.

345:

and it often nudges others to do the same. For example, at

4254:

This is the kind of person we need as an administrator. --

4739: 4331:

my interactions with ice cream have usually been positive

3281:- fully qualified candidate; and nominated by no less 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2731:

already contained all the information, i.e. playing for

224:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

98:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill

4716: 4712: 4530:

The candidate's behavior just a very few months ago at

3177: 3173: 2728: 995: 989: 983: 564: 120: 104:, where he rewrote the article from a one-line stub to 5215:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl

1889:- No issues here, looks pretty qualified for the job! 2722:

AFD was not only because it smacked of not following

777:

I realise that this is a contentious area. There are

196:

for their encouragement, guidance, and kind words. –

4931:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood

4387:

Good candidate, no concerning issues. Best of luck!

2991:. Happy to support an experienced and sound editor. 94:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood

4911:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Penna

1140: 1094: 1073: 4921:since a short Google search confirms he played in 2800:, if hes willing to do the job, good luck to him. 691:What do you think of the arguments put forward in 383:Have you been paid for any editing you have done? 111:Elsewhere, Joe regularly answers questions at the 3760:Can Joe be trusted with the tools? I think so. -- 3184:. Looking forward to seeing more of your work. - 2783:, very impressed, would make an excellent admin. 2718:(moved from neutral) The reason I brought up the 1689:to GA in less than a month is pretty good going. 361:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 5211:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth 4825:(now closed as "keep") and got upset about it. 4208:Good editor, convincing answers, trustworthy. 3614:excellent candidate, no concerns whatsoever. 3345:Seems competent and capable. Net positive. -- 2545:will do good work as an admin. Net positive. 1053: 8: 1014:Edit summary usage for Joe Roe can be found 4905:, the candidate argued that an article met 3854:; Everything that could be said has been... 263:, the first article I've brought up to GA, 56:Final (169/2/7); Closed as successful by — 4823:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Aryk 1463:, I do not see any issues at the moment.-- 1060: 1046: 1038: 4858:, there's the door. Christ, only at RfA. 2945:. I'd love this user as an administrator. 1630:- no red flags, has good qualifications. 4933:he argued for deletion based on failing 2162:Good answers to questions, no concerns. 1026:Please keep discussion constructive and 523:, how would you have proceeded? Thanks. 119:where he handles questions well such as 4538:when the outcome was always an obvious 3946:- probably won't delete the main page. 659:volunteers are subsidising paid editors 4330: 4070:- No concerns with this candidate. -- 2309:More admins is always a good thing. -- 624:article is of comparable quality to a 115:and drops in from time to time on the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 3067:Seems even-keeled enough to suit me. 1353:93.5% of AfD's were matches as of now 7: 4854:, so if it doesn't mean anything to 4766:That would be like saying your name 4534:is embarrassing to say the least. A 3524:. I have collaborated with Joe over 188:Gratefully accepted. Many thanks to 4693:and the etiquette before !voting. – 3228:I see no issues with this editor. 736:This is a follow on question from 515:Hello Joe. As you would know, the 24: 5350:Successful requests for adminship 4634: 1718:, looks fine to me. Good luck! -- 1480:- Would be a fine administrator. 4740: 1255:) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 3594:Happy to support - Mop please! 1225:Some very nice writing done at 117:Articles for creation help desk 789:neutrally-written encylopaedia 1: 5317:21:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 5287:16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 5272:15:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 5240:15:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 5227:15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 5206:15:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 5190:06:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 5166:11:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 5145:19:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 5131:18:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 5117:15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 5100:11:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 5079:19:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 5055:21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 5025:17:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 4988:10:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 4952:17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 4881:20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 4836:10:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 4817:09:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 4788:13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 4761:13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 4730:11:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 4707:15:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 4680:16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 4651:13:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 4613:10:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 4587:03:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 4553:00:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 4519:12:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4501:11:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4485:05:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4468:05:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4448:03:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4431:02:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4411:00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4399:22:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4380:20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4352:19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4317:19:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4298:18:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4281:18:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4264:17:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4247:16:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4235:16:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4218:14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4201:14:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4184:11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4167:09:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4152:05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4134:04:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4113:03:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4096:02:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4079:01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4063:00:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4046:00:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 4029:20:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3999:20:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3982:20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3958:20:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3939:19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3925:19:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3902:18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3894:-The one, the only, Editor760 3885:18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3868:16:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3847:15:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3823:. Carrite sums it up well. 3816:12:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3804:12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3787:10:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3770:10:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3753:08:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3729:03:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3712:03:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3695:01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3676:22:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3658:21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3641:21:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3624:19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3607:18:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3587:18:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3571:17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3554:17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3537:16:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3517:15:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3500:15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3471:14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3457:12:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3440:10:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3404:10:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3387:08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3368:07:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3352:06:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3338:03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3322:03:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3296:02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3274:01:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3259:01:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3239:01:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3218:01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3199:00:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 3165:23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3148:22:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3131:22:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3111:21:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3095:20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3082:18:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3060:18:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3033:17:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 3007:16:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2984:15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2966:12:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2938:10:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2922:08:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2900:04:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2883:01:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2874:01:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2857:00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 2840:23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2819: 2810:23:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2793:20:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2776:19:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2753:18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2711:17:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2690:15:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2672:17:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2647:14:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2629:13:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2612:13:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2595:12:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2581:12:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2552:10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2538:08:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2521:04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2501:17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2480:04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2457:03:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2440:01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2415:01:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2398:00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2368:00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2354:00:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 2336:23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2319:23:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2302:22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2285:22:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2266:22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2243:21:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2226:21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2209:20:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2191:20:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2172:19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2155:19:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2141:19:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2125:18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2107:17:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2090:17:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2076:. Fully qualified candidate. 2069:17:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2044:17:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 2014:17:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1997:17:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1987:. Fully qualified candidate. 1980:15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1962:15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1944:15:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1918:14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1882:13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1863:11:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1849:11:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1816:11:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1799:10:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1789:08:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1767:03:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1751:03:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1728:03:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1711:03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1699:02:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1678:01:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1662:00:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 1645:23:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1623:22:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1554:22:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1537:22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1520:22:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1508:21:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1492:21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1473:21:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1456:20:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1441:20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1424:19:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1408:19:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1391:19:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1369:18:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1344:18:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1319:17:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1302:17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1285:17:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1267:17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1240:17:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1218:17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1206:16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 1189:16:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 932:15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 880:20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 843:20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 803:20:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 770:21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 719:19:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 674:10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC) 606:15:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 577:11:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 542:15:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 492:14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 449:08:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) 429:23:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 401:22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 208:16:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC) 177:17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC) 142:17:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC) 64:16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 4359:- No issues that I can see. 4333:; that was the time to cite 2733:Virtus Pallacanestro Bologna 920:invoke it all that often. – 636:inescapable tendency to bias 155:helped to expand many more. 4793:Heh. Anyway, the fact that 2865:environments. Best Wishes. 213:Questions for the candidate 5366: 4456:to the project overall. - 3102:Net positive, absolutely. 3089:- LGTM, as the kids say. ( 3021:very concerned but neutral 2701:marginal. Looks sensible. 318:Inspector Gadget (blogger) 5246:out" at UAA was all that 4917:which smacks of ignoring 3777:I endorse the candidate. 1913:stand clear of the doors! 888:Additional question from 851:Additional question from 811:Additional question from 727:Additional question from 682:Additional question from 614:Additional question from 550:Additional question from 500:Additional question from 457:Additional question from 409:Additional question from 374:Additional question from 351:this ANI I recently filed 5327:Please do not modify it. 4438:Impressive AfD stats. -- 4122:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 3182:your media contributions 4850:Civility is one of the 784:Wikipedian in Residence 328:as successful examples. 232:academics and educators 38:Please do not modify it 5049:Insertcleverphrasehere 4734:Hmm, can I officially 4036:- trustworthy editor. 2683:Won't break anything. 2656:struck per talk page. 2052:First came across him 1735:- likely net positive 1385:Insertcleverphrasehere 1361:Pharaoh of the Wizards 472:Per the guidelines at 314:Industry (archaeology) 4559:(Extended discussion) 3989:A great candidate! - 3892:No reason to say no. 3631:no reason to oppose. 2929:. Welcome aboard! -- 1687:Margaret Ursula Jones 1378:willing to compromise 1227:Margaret Ursula Jones 289:hard and soft science 261:Margaret Ursula Jones 125:Margaret Ursula Jones 106:stop it being deleted 34:request for adminship 4242:, no reason not to. 3935:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 3206:As a net positive. 2485:User's first edit. — 1153:Global contributions 347:Talk:Southern Levant 277:indigenous territory 5156:for the mean time. 4923:Lega Basket Serie A 4481:click to talk to me 3796:Boing! said Zebedee 2652:Vote from indeffed 1808:My name is not dave 1415:Why the hell not?-- 1107:Non-automated edits 945:Links for Joe Roe: 913:the snowball clause 899:WP:Ignore all rules 829:did their job right 779:ongoing discussions 693:this MfD discussion 1086:Edit summary usage 1034:before commenting. 744:, the roof of the 39: 5274: 5128: 5051: 5044:more rare IMO. — 5021: 5013: 5002: 4986: 4965:Charlotte Devaney 4895: 4872: 4801:, not just AN/I. 4790: 4561: 4429: 4345: 4271:per work at afc. 4260: 4020: 3864: 3437: 3384: 3079: 2699:Charlotte Devaney 2667: 2503: 2207: 2041: 2027: 1939: 1931: 1845: 1568: 1387: 1269: 1257:Count corrected: 1166: 1165: 1032:his contributions 930: 878: 841: 801: 717: 672: 604: 540: 521:this A7 candidate 509: 490: 447: 399: 281:Sintashta culture 206: 37: 5357: 5329: 5301:General comments 5284: 5269: 5260: 5244: 5237: 5203: 5126: 5076: 5068: 5047: 5017: 5011: 4996: 4980: 4962: 4948: 4943: 4894: 4878: 4873: 4866: 4814: 4807: 4785: 4776: 4765: 4758: 4751: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4704: 4699: 4659: 4647: 4641: 4636: 4631: 4610: 4601: 4583: 4580: 4577: 4574: 4557: 4514: 4498: 4464: 4440:I am One of Many 4423: 4378: 4374: 4369: 4349: 4342: 4315: 4290:Inter&anthro 4277:tea and biscuits 4258: 4075: 4026: 4021: 4014: 3977: 3976: 3973: 3970: 3936: 3922: 3916: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3750: 3749: 3742: 3741: 3655: 3605: 3600: 3486: 3485: 3433: 3380: 3365: 3350: 3331: 3312: 3310: 3269: 3256: 3250: 3234: 3215: 3210: 3197: 3191: 3178:unsourced change 3128: 3107: 3080: 3073: 3055: 3046: 3004: 3002: 2997: 2978: 2963: 2956: 2951: 2934: 2919: 2917:Let's discuss it 2871: 2838: 2768: 2749: 2744: 2697:. Question over 2687: 2666: 2663: 2659: 2620: 2593: 2578: 2573: 2549: 2484: 2436: 2430: 2395: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2204: 2199: 2187: 2184: 2133:Opabinia regalis 2085: 2039: 2021: 1975: 1937: 1929: 1908: 1900: 1895: 1846: 1842: 1836: 1831: 1829: 1787: 1786: 1784: 1763: 1725: 1675: 1642: 1637: 1621: 1619: 1612: 1597: 1590: 1583: 1576: 1562: 1505: 1489: 1484: 1383: 1277:TheGracefulSlick 1256: 1234: 1196:as conominator. 1102:Articles created 1062: 1055: 1048: 1039: 1019: 1011: 970: 924: 890:Inter&anthro 872: 835: 795: 711: 666: 598: 534: 506: 501: 484: 441: 393: 370: 322:Ralph de Warenne 200: 147:Conomination by 60: 5365: 5364: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5332:this nomination 5325: 5303: 5280: 5263: 5256: 5233: 5199: 5127:(distænt write) 5072: 5066: 5022: 4956: 4946: 4941: 4891: 4876: 4865: 4860: 4812: 4805: 4779: 4772: 4756: 4749: 4741: 4700: 4695: 4657: 4645: 4639: 4629: 4617:Civility means 4604: 4597: 4581: 4578: 4575: 4572: 4527: 4510: 4494: 4466: 4462: 4370: 4365: 4363: 4347: 4306: 4261: 4073: 4024: 4013: 4008: 3974: 3971: 3968: 3967: 3955: 3934: 3920: 3915: 3911: 3861: 3856: 3839:RickinBaltimore 3747: 3746: 3740:Joshua Jonathan 3739: 3738: 3692: 3650: 3598: 3595: 3563:Equineducklings 3526:Southern Levant 3498: 3481: 3480: 3383: 3361: 3346: 3329: 3308: 3307: 3288:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3267: 3254: 3248: 3232: 3213: 3208: 3193: 3185: 3126: 3105: 3068: 3053: 3044: 3000: 2995: 2993: 2976: 2959: 2952: 2947: 2930: 2915: 2867: 2847:Seems capable. 2836: 2785:AlaskanNativeRU 2762: 2747: 2742: 2685: 2664: 2657: 2618: 2589: 2574: 2569: 2547: 2434: 2428: 2394: 2391: 2294:Tony the Marine 2279: 2276: 2202: 2185: 2182: 2088: 2083: 2040:(distænt write) 1971: 1904: 1896: 1891: 1879: 1840: 1834: 1827: 1825: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1761: 1720: 1671: 1640: 1632: 1617: 1611: 1608: 1593: 1586: 1579: 1572: 1570: 1501: 1487: 1482: 1448:- no concerns. 1232: 1172: 1167: 1162: 1136: 1090: 1069: 1068:RfA/RfB toolbox 1066: 1015: 963: 946: 942: 760:and the above. 742:Gutenberg Bible 587:Novoarkhanhelsk 561:Novoarkhanhelsk 504: 360: 269:Tatiana Warsher 265:Crystal Bennett 215: 102:Pahargarh caves 72: 58: 53: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5363: 5361: 5353: 5352: 5342: 5341: 5337: 5336: 5320: 5319: 5302: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5192: 5168: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5102: 5088:WP:NETPOSITIVE 5081: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5016: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4927:WP:NBASKETBALL 4890: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4861: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4615: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4526: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4503: 4487: 4470: 4460: 4458:The Bushranger 4450: 4433: 4414: 4401: 4382: 4354: 4319: 4300: 4283: 4266: 4257: 4249: 4237: 4220: 4203: 4186: 4169: 4154: 4136: 4115: 4098: 4081: 4065: 4055:Ms Sarah Welch 4048: 4031: 4009: 4001: 3984: 3960: 3951: 3941: 3927: 3913: 3904: 3887: 3870: 3849: 3832: 3818: 3806: 3789: 3772: 3755: 3731: 3714: 3697: 3688: 3678: 3660: 3643: 3626: 3609: 3589: 3573: 3556: 3539: 3519: 3502: 3488: 3473: 3459: 3442: 3406: 3389: 3381: 3370: 3354: 3340: 3324: 3298: 3276: 3261: 3241: 3220: 3201: 3167: 3150: 3133: 3113: 3097: 3084: 3062: 3035: 3009: 2986: 2968: 2943:Strong Support 2940: 2924: 2902: 2885: 2876: 2859: 2842: 2834: 2812: 2795: 2778: 2755: 2737:WP:NBASKETBALL 2713: 2703:Martinevans123 2692: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2614: 2597: 2583: 2554: 2540: 2530:Adityavagarwal 2526:Strong support 2523: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2464:Great editor! 2459: 2442: 2417: 2400: 2392: 2370: 2356: 2338: 2321: 2311:Bigpoliticsfan 2304: 2287: 2268: 2245: 2228: 2211: 2193: 2174: 2157: 2143: 2127: 2109: 2092: 2080: 2071: 2047: 2016: 1999: 1982: 1964: 1946: 1920: 1884: 1877: 1865: 1851: 1818: 1801: 1791: 1769: 1753: 1730: 1713: 1708:Joshualouie711 1701: 1680: 1664: 1647: 1625: 1609: 1556: 1539: 1522: 1510: 1494: 1475: 1458: 1443: 1426: 1410: 1393: 1371: 1346: 1321: 1304: 1294:Neil S. Walker 1287: 1270: 1242: 1220: 1208: 1191: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1161: 1160: 1155: 1150: 1144: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1124: 1119: 1114: 1109: 1104: 1098: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1089: 1088: 1083: 1077: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1065: 1064: 1057: 1050: 1042: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1012: 941: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 892: 885: 884: 883: 882: 855: 848: 847: 846: 845: 815: 808: 807: 806: 805: 746:Sistine Chapel 731: 724: 723: 722: 721: 686: 679: 678: 677: 676: 651: 644:promotionalism 618: 611: 610: 609: 608: 554: 547: 546: 545: 544: 510: 497: 496: 495: 494: 461: 454: 453: 452: 451: 421:117.200.195.57 413: 406: 405: 404: 403: 378: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 332: 331: 330: 329: 303: 302: 301: 300: 243: 242: 241: 240: 214: 211: 186: 185: 161:AfD Statistics 71: 68: 52: 47: 45: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5362: 5351: 5348: 5347: 5345: 5335: 5333: 5328: 5322: 5321: 5318: 5314: 5310: 5305: 5304: 5300: 5288: 5285: 5283: 5276: 5275: 5273: 5270: 5268: 5267: 5261: 5259: 5253: 5250:required :) 5249: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5238: 5236: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5225: 5223: 5221: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5204: 5202: 5196: 5193: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5179: 5176: 5172: 5169: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5152: 5146: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5129: 5124: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5114: 5110: 5106: 5103: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5085: 5082: 5080: 5077: 5075: 5070: 5069: 5062: 5056: 5053: 5052: 5050: 5042: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5020: 5014: 5010: 5005: 5000: 4999:edit conflict 4995: 4994: 4989: 4984: 4979: 4975: 4970: 4969:Lorenzo Penna 4966: 4960: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4950: 4949: 4944: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4899: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4882: 4879: 4874: 4871: 4870: 4864: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4837: 4834: 4832: 4830: 4829: 4824: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4815: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4791: 4789: 4786: 4784: 4783: 4777: 4775: 4769: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4759: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4737: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4728: 4726: 4724: 4723: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4705: 4703: 4698: 4692: 4688: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4668:George Orwell 4665: 4661: 4660: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4648: 4646:Contributions 4642: 4633: 4632: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4614: 4611: 4609: 4608: 4602: 4600: 4594: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4585: 4584: 4568: 4565: 4560: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4541: 4537: 4536:speedy delete 4533: 4529: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4517: 4515: 4513: 4507: 4504: 4502: 4499: 4497: 4496:Winged Blades 4491: 4488: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4471: 4469: 4465: 4463:One ping only 4459: 4454: 4451: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4434: 4432: 4427: 4422: 4418: 4415: 4412: 4409: 4405: 4402: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4391: 4386: 4383: 4381: 4377: 4375: 4373: 4368: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4350: 4340: 4339:sampling bias 4336: 4332: 4327: 4323: 4320: 4318: 4313: 4309: 4304: 4301: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4284: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4267: 4265: 4262: 4253: 4250: 4248: 4245: 4241: 4238: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4221: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4204: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4187: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4170: 4168: 4165: 4164: 4158: 4155: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4140: 4137: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4116: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4099: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4082: 4080: 4077: 4076: 4069: 4066: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4049: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4032: 4030: 4027: 4022: 4019: 4018: 4012: 4005: 4002: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3985: 3983: 3980: 3978: 3964: 3961: 3959: 3954: 3949: 3945: 3942: 3940: 3937: 3931: 3928: 3926: 3923: 3918: 3917: 3908: 3905: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3888: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3871: 3869: 3866: 3859: 3853: 3850: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3833: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3819: 3817: 3814: 3810: 3807: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3790: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3773: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3756: 3754: 3751: 3743: 3735: 3732: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3715: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3698: 3696: 3691: 3686: 3682: 3679: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3661: 3659: 3656: 3654: 3647: 3644: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3627: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3610: 3608: 3604: 3602: 3601: 3593: 3590: 3588: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3557: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3535: 3532: 3527: 3523: 3520: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3509:Airbornemihir 3506: 3503: 3501: 3496: 3492: 3487: 3484: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3469: 3468: 3463: 3460: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3443: 3441: 3438: 3436: 3431: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3418: 3415: 3410: 3407: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3385: 3379: 3374: 3371: 3369: 3366: 3364: 3358: 3355: 3353: 3349: 3344: 3341: 3339: 3336: 3333: 3332: 3325: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3302: 3299: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3284: 3280: 3277: 3275: 3272: 3270: 3265: 3262: 3260: 3257: 3251: 3245: 3242: 3240: 3237: 3236: 3227: 3224: 3221: 3219: 3216: 3211: 3205: 3202: 3200: 3196: 3190: 3189: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3168: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157:Pawnkingthree 3154: 3151: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3134: 3132: 3129: 3124: 3123: 3117: 3114: 3112: 3109: 3108: 3101: 3098: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3085: 3083: 3077: 3072: 3066: 3063: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3039: 3036: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3008: 3005: 3003: 2998: 2990: 2987: 2985: 2982: 2979: 2972: 2969: 2967: 2964: 2962: 2957: 2955: 2950: 2944: 2941: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2918: 2913: 2912: 2906: 2903: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2886: 2884: 2880: 2877: 2875: 2872: 2870: 2863: 2860: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2841: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2824: 2817: 2813: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2779: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2769: 2767: 2766: 2759: 2756: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2745: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2725: 2721: 2720:Lorenzo Penna 2717: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2688: 2682: 2679: 2673: 2670: 2668: 2661: 2655: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2627: 2624: 2621: 2615: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604:Coolabahapple 2601: 2598: 2596: 2592: 2588:No concerns. 2587: 2584: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2572: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2553: 2550: 2544: 2541: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2437: 2431: 2425: 2421: 2418: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2396: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2305: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2283: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2197: 2194: 2192: 2189: 2188: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2158: 2156: 2153: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2113: 2110: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2086: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2037: 2032: 2025: 2024:edit conflict 2020: 2017: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1981: 1978: 1976: 1974: 1968: 1965: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1950: 1947: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1933: 1932: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1909: 1907: 1901: 1899: 1894: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1875: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1855: 1852: 1850: 1847: 1843: 1837: 1830: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1797: 1795: 1792: 1790: 1785: 1783: 1778:usernamekiran 1773: 1770: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1757: 1754: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1717: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681: 1679: 1676: 1674: 1668: 1665: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1635: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1596: 1591: 1589: 1584: 1582: 1577: 1575: 1566: 1565:edit conflict 1560: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1529:Beyond My Ken 1526: 1523: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1506: 1504: 1498: 1495: 1493: 1490: 1485: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1392: 1389: 1388: 1386: 1379: 1375: 1372: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1241: 1238: 1236: 1235: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1219: 1216: 1215:There'sNoTime 1212: 1209: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1192: 1190: 1187: 1185: 1183: 1182: 1178:as nominator 1177: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1159: 1156: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1146: 1145: 1143: 1139: 1133: 1130: 1128: 1125: 1123: 1120: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1105: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1097: 1093: 1087: 1084: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1076: 1072: 1063: 1058: 1056: 1051: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1033: 1029: 1018: 1013: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1000: 997: 994: 991: 988: 985: 982: 979: 976: 973: 969: 966: 962: 959: 956: 953: 949: 944: 943: 939: 933: 928: 923: 918: 914: 910: 906: 903: 902: 900: 896: 893: 891: 887: 886: 881: 876: 871: 866: 863: 862: 859: 856: 854: 850: 849: 844: 839: 834: 830: 826: 823: 822: 819: 816: 814: 810: 809: 804: 799: 794: 790: 785: 780: 776: 773: 772: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 732: 730: 726: 725: 720: 715: 710: 705: 700: 697: 696: 694: 690: 687: 685: 681: 680: 675: 670: 665: 660: 656: 652: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 630: 629: 627: 622: 619: 617: 613: 612: 607: 602: 597: 593: 592:Vera Karelina 588: 583: 580: 579: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 555: 553: 549: 548: 543: 538: 533: 528: 525: 524: 522: 518: 514: 511: 508: 507: 499: 498: 493: 488: 483: 479: 475: 471: 468: 467: 465: 462: 460: 456: 455: 450: 445: 440: 435: 432: 431: 430: 426: 422: 417: 414: 412: 408: 407: 402: 397: 392: 388: 385: 384: 382: 379: 377: 376:Beyond My Ken 373: 372: 371: 368: 367:two questions 364: 352: 348: 343: 340: 339: 337: 334: 333: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 306: 305: 304: 298: 294: 293:Vera Karelina 290: 286: 285:Vinča culture 282: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 251: 250: 248: 245: 244: 237: 233: 229: 226: 225: 223: 220: 219: 218: 212: 210: 209: 204: 199: 195: 191: 184: 181: 180: 179: 178: 174: 170: 164: 162: 156: 152: 151: 150: 144: 143: 140: 138: 136: 135: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 109: 107: 103: 99: 95: 90: 86: 83: 80: 76: 69: 67: 66: 65: 61: 51: 48: 46: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5326: 5323: 5281: 5265: 5264: 5257: 5247: 5234: 5218: 5200: 5194: 5182:Softlavender 5170: 5153: 5137:South Nashua 5104: 5083: 5073: 5064: 5046: 5045: 5008: 5003: 4939: 4913:for failing 4897: 4896: 4868: 4867: 4862: 4855: 4852:five pillars 4827: 4803: 4802: 4781: 4780: 4773: 4767: 4747: 4746: 4735: 4721: 4701: 4696: 4656: 4628: 4622: 4618: 4606: 4605: 4598: 4592: 4571: 4566: 4539: 4535: 4511: 4505: 4495: 4489: 4477:Peacemaker67 4472: 4452: 4435: 4416: 4403: 4388: 4384: 4371: 4366: 4360: 4356: 4325: 4321: 4308:Pagliaccious 4302: 4285: 4268: 4251: 4239: 4222: 4205: 4188: 4176:Hhhhhkohhhhh 4171: 4161: 4156: 4138: 4117: 4100: 4083: 4071: 4067: 4050: 4033: 4016: 4015: 4010: 4003: 3986: 3962: 3943: 3929: 3909: 3906: 3889: 3872: 3851: 3834: 3820: 3808: 3791: 3774: 3757: 3733: 3721:Joefromrandb 3716: 3699: 3680: 3668:Jasphetamine 3662: 3652: 3645: 3628: 3611: 3597: 3591: 3579: 3575: 3558: 3541: 3521: 3504: 3482: 3475: 3466: 3461: 3444: 3434: 3428: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3413: 3408: 3391: 3377: 3372: 3363:CAPTAIN RAJU 3362: 3356: 3342: 3330:Juliancolton 3327: 3306: 3305: 3300: 3282: 3278: 3263: 3243: 3230: 3222: 3203: 3186: 3169: 3152: 3135: 3121: 3115: 3103: 3099: 3091:Lalalalllla7 3086: 3064: 3052: 3051: 3043: 3042: 3037: 3020: 3012:Full support 3011: 2992: 2988: 2970: 2960: 2953: 2948: 2942: 2926: 2916: 2910: 2904: 2887: 2878: 2868: 2861: 2844: 2822: 2815: 2814:Inclined to 2797: 2780: 2771: 2764: 2763: 2757: 2740: 2729:at that time 2716:Weak support 2715: 2694: 2680: 2634: 2633: 2599: 2585: 2575: 2570: 2565:Easy Support 2564: 2560: 2556: 2542: 2525: 2508: 2486: 2472: 2461: 2444: 2424:power~enwiki 2419: 2402: 2379:filelakeshoe 2372: 2362:Oripaypaykim 2358: 2340: 2328:Double sharp 2323: 2306: 2289: 2270: 2251: 2247: 2230: 2218:Kingofaces43 2213: 2200: 2195: 2180: 2176: 2164:South Nashua 2159: 2145: 2129: 2115: 2111: 2094: 2073: 2057: 2049: 2030: 2018: 2001: 1984: 1972: 1966: 1948: 1936: 1927: 1922: 1912: 1905: 1897: 1892: 1886: 1867: 1859:Patient Zero 1858: 1853: 1824: 1820: 1803: 1796: 1793: 1781: 1771: 1759: 1755: 1743: 1732: 1721: 1715: 1703: 1682: 1672: 1666: 1649: 1633: 1627: 1606: 1605: 1600: 1599: 1594: 1587: 1580: 1573: 1558: 1541: 1524: 1512: 1502: 1496: 1483:Hummerrocket 1477: 1460: 1445: 1428: 1421: 1416: 1412: 1395: 1382: 1381: 1373: 1348: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1306: 1289: 1272: 1244: 1230: 1222: 1210: 1198:TonyBallioni 1193: 1180: 1175: 1025: 1024: 1004: 998: 992: 986: 980: 974: 967: 960: 954: 904: 894: 864: 857: 824: 817: 774: 733: 703: 698: 688: 654: 631: 620: 581: 565:last version 556: 526: 512: 502: 469: 463: 459:Power~enwiki 433: 415: 410: 386: 380: 366: 359: 341: 335: 326:Cheste hoard 310:Barbara Robb 257:a task force 252: 246: 227: 221: 216: 187: 182: 169:TonyBallioni 165: 157: 153: 149:TonyBallioni 146: 145: 133: 129:Good Article 110: 81: 73: 55: 54: 49: 44: 30: 28: 4770:Dave :) — 4738:an oppose? 4672:scope_creep 4421:regentspark 4174:Per above. 3748:Let's talk! 3495:revolutions 3396:Jonathunder 3249:Orange Mike 3140:Michipedian 2977:Doug Weller 2869:Operator873 2849:Hrodvarsson 2823:SMcCandlish 2639:Bambenekcd1 2407:Lepricavark 2117:kennethaw88 1989:Newyorkbrad 1954:Ad Orientem 1930:EMMENDINGER 1706:per nom. -- 1654:K.e.coffman 1433:Cocohead781 1418:Jetstreamer 1357:Netpositive 1158:User rights 1148:CentralAuth 762:scope_creep 729:scope_creep 684:Linguist111 552:Vanamonde93 474:WP:NOQUORUM 5266:velut luna 5252:Carpe diem 5219:Ritchie333 4929:). And at 4828:Ritchie333 4799:WP:GRENADE 4782:velut luna 4722:Ritchie333 4664:Ted Hughes 4607:velut luna 4335:WP:IPHUMAN 4038:PhilKnight 3948:Ivanvector 3912:Rcsprinter 3877:Cwmhiraeth 3762:Malcolmxl5 3651:Jezebel's 3174:rude to me 2273:Why not? - 2235:Tryptofish 2078:Smallbones 1641:parlez moi 1400:Noel baran 1181:Ritchie333 1141:Cross-wiki 1122:AfD closes 940:Discussion 640:notability 134:Ritchie333 70:Nomination 31:successful 4919:WP:BEFORE 4915:WP:NSPORT 4795:Nikolaiho 4687:Nikolaiho 4623:extremely 4408:Lankiveil 4390:Lord Roem 3813:FlyingAce 3779:Shellwood 3584:Sebastian 3561:easy one 3214:(discuss) 3138:per nom. 2996:Tim riley 2724:WP:BEFORE 2466:Lockerson 2449:Natureium 2326:Why not? 2084:smalltalk 2006:Vanamonde 1828:Anarchyte 1737:Cas Liber 1673:FITINDIA 1546:Legacypac 1503:Dysklyver 1465:Ymblanter 1336:Ajraddatz 1311:Alex Shih 1117:AfD votes 1112:BLP edits 990:block log 750:Mona Lisa 569:Vanamonde 478:WP:REFUND 5344:Category 5254:! ;) — 5158:Mahveotm 4974:Rikster2 4711:I guess 4210:Mduvekot 4144:Donner60 4088:Inks.LWC 3991:Ret.Prof 3987:Support: 3825:Kablammo 3704:Danaman5 3690:contribs 3467:NsTaGaTr 3209:Hawkeye7 2892:Catrìona 2658:Linguist 2476:contribs 2099:MelanieN 2061:Ammarpad 2019:Support! 1747:contribs 1691:SilkTork 1517:Smmurphy 1332:over 100 1132:PROD log 1095:Analysis 1074:Counters 958:contribs 758:Feminist 738:Feminist 616:Feminist 113:Teahouse 85:contribs 59:xaosflux 5258:fortuna 5195:Neutral 5171:Neutral 5154:Neutral 5109:Collect 5105:Neutral 5092:Amakuru 5084:Neutral 5041:CSD log 5037:ACTRIAL 5012:endaliv 5004:Neutral 4935:WP:PROF 4898:Neutral 4889:Neutral 4774:fortuna 4599:fortuna 4545:MPS1992 4506:Support 4490:Support 4473:Support 4453:Support 4436:Support 4426:comment 4417:Support 4404:Support 4385:Support 4357:Support 4348:Tigraan 4326:pattern 4322:Support 4303:Support 4286:Support 4269:Support 4256:Cameron 4252:Support 4240:Support 4227:Gap9551 4223:Support 4206:Support 4189:Support 4172:Support 4163:Lindsay 4157:Support 4139:Support 4118:Support 4105:BusterD 4101:Support 4084:Support 4068:Support 4051:Support 4034:Support 4004:Support 3963:Support 3944:Support 3930:Support 3907:Support 3890:Support 3873:Support 3857:TJH2018 3852:Support 3835:Support 3821:Support 3809:Support 3792:Support 3775:Support 3758:Support 3734:Support 3717:Support 3700:Support 3681:Support 3663:Support 3646:Support 3633:Banedon 3629:Support 3616:Rentier 3612:Support 3592:Support 3576:Support 3559:Support 3546:Kierzek 3542:Support 3522:Support 3505:Support 3491:spin me 3476:Support 3462:Support 3445:Support 3409:Support 3392:Support 3373:Support 3357:Support 3343:Support 3301:Support 3279:Support 3244:Support 3223:Support 3204:Support 3176:re: an 3170:Support 3153:Support 3136:Support 3127:(talk), 3122:Noyster 3116:Support 3100:Support 3087:Support 3071:Awilley 3065:Support 3038:Support 2989:Support 2971:Support 2927:Support 2905:Support 2888:Support 2879:Support 2862:Support 2845:Support 2816:support 2798:Support 2781:Support 2758:Support 2695:Support 2686:Harrias 2681:Support 2635:Support 2600:Support 2586:Support 2557:Support 2543:Support 2513:Johnbod 2509:Support 2462:Support 2445:Support 2420:Support 2403:Support 2374:Support 2359:Support 2341:Support 2324:Support 2307:Support 2290:Support 2271:Support 2248:Support 2231:Support 2214:Support 2203:Lourdes 2196:Support 2177:Support 2160:Support 2146:Support 2130:Support 2112:Support 2095:Support 2074:Support 2050:Support 2002:Support 1985:Support 1967:Support 1949:Support 1923:Support 1887:Support 1872:Yunshui 1868:Support 1854:Support 1821:Support 1804:Support 1794:Support 1772:Support 1762:Spencer 1756:Support 1733:Support 1716:Support 1704:Support 1667:Support 1650:Support 1628:Support 1559:Support 1542:Support 1525:Support 1513:Support 1497:Support 1478:Support 1461:Support 1453:Snowman 1446:Support 1429:Support 1413:Support 1396:Support 1374:Support 1355:.Clear 1349:Support 1324:Support 1307:Support 1290:Support 1273:Support 1259:Carrite 1249:Carrite 1245:Support 1223:Support 1211:Support 1194:Support 1176:Support 1170:Support 1127:CSD log 965:deleted 948:Joe Roe 505:Lourdes 411:IP user 273:Akuntsu 236:history 194:Ritchie 75:Joe Roe 50:Joe Roe 5309:Darreg 5282:Nihlus 5235:Nihlus 5201:Nihlus 4736:oppose 4691:WP:RFA 4567:Oppose 4525:Oppose 4512:Rzuwig 4372:Whales 4193:Inatan 3921:(blab) 3531:Deryck 3449:Fbergo 3348:Begoon 3311:Thomas 3235:jones 3226:WP:100 3054:apolis 3025:Otr500 2961:(Chat) 2911:Cullen 2837:ⱷ< 2765:bd2412 2626:minist 2561:1 or 2 2365:(talk) 2346:Edison 2280:ASTILY 2150:Kurtis 1782:(talk) 1610:Gobble 1488:(talk) 1081:XTools 917:WP:IAR 909:WP:IAR 853:Darreg 813:Darreg 748:, the 646:, and 324:, and 295:, and 5067:ceran 4959:SoWhy 4697:Davey 4619:a lot 4259:11598 3953:Edits 3685:James 3653:Ponyo 3580:Sigh! 3483:78.26 2949:Bingo 2832:: --> 2802:Ceoil 2591:Katie 2571:Davey 2548:Gizza 2488:Kusma 2253:Kusma 1973:KGirl 1893:Class 1636:slava 1450:Giant 1028:civil 972:count 754:David 655:ought 363:limit 297:Riwat 16:< 5313:talk 5186:talk 5162:talk 5141:talk 5123:L3X1 5113:talk 5096:talk 5074:thor 4983:talk 4967:and 4869:warm 4813:dave 4757:dave 4717:this 4715:and 4713:this 4702:2010 4676:talk 4658:k6ka 4640:Talk 4630:k6ka 4549:talk 4540:keep 4444:talk 4395:talk 4367:Seth 4312:talk 4294:talk 4231:talk 4214:talk 4197:talk 4180:talk 4148:talk 4130:mail 4126:talk 4109:talk 4092:talk 4074:Dane 4059:talk 4042:talk 4017:warm 3995:talk 3898:talk 3881:talk 3863:talk 3843:talk 3829:talk 3800:talk 3783:talk 3766:talk 3725:talk 3708:talk 3672:talk 3637:talk 3620:talk 3567:talk 3550:talk 3513:talk 3453:talk 3435:TALK 3400:talk 3318:talk 3292:talk 3255:Talk 3161:talk 3144:talk 3076:talk 3045:Mini 3029:talk 3001:talk 2981:talk 2896:talk 2853:talk 2806:talk 2789:talk 2707:talk 2665:Eins 2643:talk 2608:talk 2576:2010 2534:talk 2517:talk 2470:talk 2453:talk 2411:talk 2377:. – 2350:talk 2332:talk 2315:talk 2298:talk 2239:talk 2222:talk 2186:2014 2168:talk 2137:talk 2122:talk 2103:talk 2065:talk 2054:here 2036:L3X1 2010:talk 1993:talk 1958:talk 1938:talk 1906:talk 1841:talk 1835:work 1812:talk 1741:talk 1724:avix 1695:talk 1658:talk 1634:Dsch 1550:talk 1533:talk 1469:talk 1437:talk 1404:talk 1365:talk 1340:talk 1315:talk 1298:talk 1281:talk 1263:talk 1253:talk 1233:Mkdw 1202:talk 1017:here 1002:rfar 984:logs 952:talk 927:talk 875:talk 838:talk 798:talk 791:. – 766:talk 714:talk 669:talk 648:NPOV 601:talk 594:. – 573:talk 537:talk 487:talk 444:talk 425:talk 396:talk 267:and 234:and 203:talk 192:and 190:Tony 173:talk 96:and 79:talk 5248:was 5019:Δ's 4978:Joe 4947:Why 4856:you 4666:or 4573:Nik 4393:~ ( 4273:jcc 4244:GAB 3914:123 3378:Rob 3283:two 3268:SQL 3231:Ron 3106:JTP 2954:bro 2748:Why 2654:VOA 2567:. – 2183:MRD 1916:) 1898:455 1683:Yes 1328:366 1008:spi 978:AfD 922:Joe 895:14. 870:Joe 858:13. 833:Joe 818:12. 793:Joe 734:11. 709:Joe 689:10. 664:Joe 596:Joe 532:Joe 482:Joe 439:Joe 391:Joe 365:of 198:Joe 127:to 62:at 5346:: 5315:) 5213:, 5188:) 5164:) 5143:) 5115:) 5098:) 5023:/ 5015:// 4942:So 4907:G4 4768:is 4678:) 4649:) 4643:· 4635:🍁 4593:is 4582:Ho 4579:ai 4576:ol 4551:) 4508:. 4483:) 4446:) 4397:) 4296:) 4279:) 4233:) 4216:) 4199:) 4191:. 4182:) 4150:) 4132:) 4128:• 4111:) 4094:) 4061:) 4044:) 3997:) 3956:) 3950:(/ 3900:) 3883:) 3845:) 3802:) 3785:) 3768:) 3727:) 3710:) 3693:) 3687:(/ 3674:) 3639:) 3622:) 3569:) 3552:) 3534:C. 3515:) 3493:/ 3455:) 3423:ge 3402:) 3382:13 3334:| 3326:– 3320:) 3294:) 3252:| 3192:⋙ 3188:GS 3163:) 3146:) 3120:: 3093:) 3031:) 2898:) 2855:) 2833:ⱷ҅ 2820:— 2808:) 2791:) 2743:So 2709:) 2645:) 2610:) 2536:) 2519:) 2499:) 2478:) 2455:) 2438:) 2432:, 2413:) 2389:) 2385:/ 2352:) 2334:) 2317:) 2300:) 2264:) 2241:) 2224:) 2170:) 2139:) 2120:• 2105:) 2067:) 2031:no 2012:) 1995:) 1960:) 1942:) 1838:| 1814:) 1749:) 1697:) 1660:) 1618:🦃 1561:- 1552:) 1535:) 1471:) 1439:) 1406:) 1367:) 1342:) 1317:) 1300:) 1283:) 1265:) 1229:. 1204:) 996:lu 905:A: 865:A: 825:A: 775:A: 768:) 707:– 704:if 699:A: 695:? 642:, 632:A: 628:. 626:GA 621:9. 582:A: 575:) 557:8. 527:A: 517:A7 513:7. 470:A: 464:6. 437:– 434:A: 427:) 416:5. 387:A: 381:4. 342:A: 336:3. 320:, 316:, 291:, 287:, 283:, 279:, 275:, 253:A: 247:2. 228:A: 222:1. 175:) 108:. 36:. 5311:( 5184:( 5160:( 5139:( 5111:( 5094:( 5033:. 5009:M 5001:) 4997:( 4985:) 4981:( 4961:: 4957:@ 4925:( 4877:♠ 4863:S 4806:! 4750:! 4674:( 4637:( 4626:— 4547:( 4479:( 4442:( 4428:) 4424:( 4413:. 4314:) 4310:( 4292:( 4275:( 4229:( 4212:( 4195:( 4178:( 4146:( 4124:( 4107:( 4090:( 4057:( 4040:( 4025:♠ 4011:S 3993:( 3975:G 3972:M 3969:G 3896:( 3879:( 3841:( 3831:) 3827:( 3798:( 3781:( 3764:( 3744:- 3723:( 3706:( 3670:( 3635:( 3618:( 3565:( 3548:( 3511:( 3497:) 3489:( 3451:( 3429:s 3426:r 3420:g 3417:a 3414:W 3398:( 3316:( 3309:C 3290:( 3233:h 3195:☎ 3159:( 3142:( 3078:) 3074:( 3069:~ 3027:( 2932:œ 2894:( 2851:( 2835:ᴥ 2830:¢ 2827:☏ 2804:( 2787:( 2772:T 2705:( 2641:( 2623:e 2619:f 2606:( 2532:( 2515:( 2497:c 2495:· 2493:t 2491:( 2473:· 2468:( 2451:( 2435:ν 2429:π 2426:( 2409:( 2393: 2387:c 2383:t 2381:( 2348:( 2330:( 2313:( 2296:( 2277:F 2262:c 2260:· 2258:t 2256:( 2237:( 2220:( 2166:( 2135:( 2101:( 2087:) 2081:( 2063:( 2058:— 2046:. 2026:) 2022:( 2008:( 1991:( 1956:( 1952:- 1934:( 1928:S 1910:| 1902:( 1878:水 1844:) 1832:( 1810:( 1744:· 1739:( 1722:T 1693:( 1656:( 1595:R 1588:I 1581:L 1574:B 1567:) 1563:( 1548:( 1531:( 1467:( 1435:( 1402:( 1363:( 1359:. 1338:( 1313:( 1296:( 1279:( 1261:( 1251:( 1200:( 1061:e 1054:t 1047:v 1020:. 1010:) 1005:· 999:· 993:· 987:· 981:· 975:· 968:· 961:· 955:· 950:( 929:) 925:( 877:) 873:( 840:) 836:( 800:) 796:( 764:( 716:) 712:( 671:) 667:( 603:) 599:( 571:( 539:) 535:( 489:) 485:( 446:) 442:( 423:( 398:) 394:( 353:. 299:. 205:) 201:( 171:( 82:· 77:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe - Knowledge (XXG)

Index