Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Karanacs

4009:

deletionist. Karanacs said real world notability is not the same as WP:NOTE on purpose, and that's simply not true. Karanacs also said that NOTE is the best we have to filter out topics that don't need articles, and I totally disagree. Plenty of articles got deleted before NOTE was created in 2006 and before various Knowledge pages were turned into notability guidelines in September 2006. NOTE has been around for less than 2 years, but Knowledge has been around for over 7 years. We need more admins who know the history behind the notability guidelines and understand the concept that Knowledge is not paper. In that episode RFC, Karanacs supported a statement by a user who the arbitration committee was recently debating a topic ban over. I simply couldn't support this editor being an admin at this time due to their current views on notability. But Karanacs does great article work and I encourage her to continue doing so. --

254:

tasks. I am a firm believer, though, that one should know what they are doing before actually trying to do it. I do not see myself using administrator tools in areas that I do not feel I have a comfortable working knowledge (closing AfDs, for example). At this moment in time, I would feel comfortable closing prods and some CSDs. Later, I could see myself monitoring AIV, but only after spending time watching the page to see how other administrators handle the currently listed intervention requests. As a frequent FAC reviewer, I would also try to help there where needed (for example, deleting pages).

2559:

in an admin is that they have demonstrated a need for at least one of the tools. If an admin doesn't use the tools they might as well not be an admin. Demonstrating a need for the tools isn't the only important thing to me though. The attitude of the person who is going through an Rfa, and his grasp of the policies he'll be working with is important as well. Though you haven't demonstrated a need for the tools, you have proved to us you have a good attitude, and you have shown a firm grasp of policy. The good things about you far outweigh the bad, thus I believe you are deserving of the tools.--

774:. But the most impressive part about Karanacs is her calm disposition, good nature, and excellent character: important requirements for adminship. I've observed her at FAC, and have had her talk page watched for a very long time, and have never seen her lose patience, be uncivil, or be anything less than generous, thorough and professional in her dealing with other editors and on FAC reviews, even as she firmly and politely insists that Wiki policies are upheld. 114:. She has maintained a steady flow of quality mainspace contributions for well over a year (including some mammoth articles on the history & institutions of Texas), and has a superlative record at pulling almost-there articles through the GA/FA hoops. Her talk/user talk edits show a consistent pattern of being able to collaborate, discuss and improve without once (that I can find) getting stroppy or arrogant, or even getting into an argument (aside from 304:

advocating a certain position, with brief summaries of and links to all the appropriate WP-space documentation or article-specific sources. By giving the other person a glimpse into my thought process and an invitation to frame their argument in the same way, we can (ideally) calmly debate the merits of the arguments and skip the drama. This does not always work; when it doesn't, the important thing is to remain

4064:. To say that a user "needs more experience," or "added irrelevant information," or engaged in "self-promotion," is perfectly reasonable, but to say that somebody has been "deliberately" misleading in my view is a grave accusation that should only be made if it is actually true. Aside from this (and granted that I too have been known to say things that would have been better left unsaid), I would support. 414:. As this is my first ever nomination, I feel it especially important that I thoroughly research my candidate, and look into the most tricky situations that the candidate may have faced over the course of her 10,000 edits to the encyclopedia. Again, as this is an editor who spends a lot of time reviewing other editors' work, she is far more likely than most to end up involved in tense exchanges. 3675:

else) is as valid as any other Wikipedian. Simply let the chips fall where they may. I have been in many FAC reviews (as SandyGeorgia will attest :-)). Sometimes my view wins out and sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't make either opinion right or wrong, merely how the majority went on a subject. Her opinion seemed well within bounds, IMHO. Most of the people above seem to agree.

118:, in which I can't find her putting a word out of place). The ability to view deleted articles would be invaluable to a user like this who spends so much time putting individual stub-petals together to make article-flowers; the ability to block would be useful to anyone working on the vandalism-magnet US history articles in which she works (as I know to my cost, since 232:

However, I believe those who accept administrator tools have a responsibility to use them (hopefully wisely); there is lots of work that needs to be done, and it is much easier if the workload is spread out. Although I am sure I would never be one of the most prolific users of the tools, I would try to be helpful and shoulder at least a small bit of the work.

2471:- Very thoughtful editor who contributes a lot of a skill in short supply through her work reviewing FA candidates. Her attention to detail is absolutely spot on and the way she handles herself shows a real willingness to build to concensus. I am sure that with the admin tools she will be mre of a benefit to the project, so I'm happy to support. 283:

researchers, peer-reviewers, picture-takers, etc. We brought the article from little more than a stub to FA in two weeks. It was a great experience to work with so many editors I respect to build a quality article in such a short time, and a lot of people left comments on April 1 applauding the work (although others didn't appreciate the joke).

3674:

Seriously? Everything on Knowledge, by definition, is "in an open setting". The actions that she undertook were a simple response to a certain editor's review. It's that simple, but it is one of the drawbacks to such a venue: anyone can comment on anyone else. Her opinion (whether brusque or anything

3425:

Just as an aside, I don't think anyone should have to apologize for opposing (or for any other civil expression of their opinion). Thanks for putting forward your point of view, EotW. I would also like to ensure that commenters focus on Karanacs's contributions (which of course, they may or may not

186:

Finally, let me point out one detail on Karanacs's user page: she "usually hide from Knowledge on weekends." If I had my way, every Knowledge editor would have an enforced wikibreak a couple of days a week. The fact that Karanacs is able to take her distance periodically shows that she will never be

3991:

There does seem to be a trend where candidates are opposed because of their inclusionist/deletionist stance. Inclusionist/deletionist stance has very little to do with adminship tasks, if the candidate is well-balanced. I think Karanacs' reputation as an excellent content contributor should outweigh

3597:

Just to clarify my stance on deletionism/inclusionism - in general I believe an article should be in existence if multiple reliable independent sources that offer more than trivial mention can be found about the subject. I haven't been convinced yet that anything deserves to be inherently notable.

3471:

I was not trying to self-promote, though it might have come across that way. Right here I apologise, if I haven't already, by creating drama at the ANI. I simply want an apology from Karanacs, and I'll be happy to switch to support. This is pretty much a null vote anyway, since the RFA is definitely

2558:

Let me start off by saying you're a huge asset to wikipedia:-) Your work here is amazing, and I hope you continue to edit here for many years to come. Though you're clearly an excellent wikipedian, I do have a minor issue, and that is your inactivity in admin areas. One of the main things I look for

1690:

The fact that this is the first RFA that you've "voted in" makes me want to nominate you Moni. Are you an admin? If not, why not? If you want the extra tools, let me know on my talkpage. I've seen you around, I've always thought you were an admin anyway, but apparently you're not. Again, let me

3649:

The FA honours and other accolades are impressive, but I feel Editorofthewiki is justified in taking umbrage at the brusque and snotty commentary dumped on him by this candidate in an open setting. To borrow a quote from the candidate herself in her slam of Editorofthewiki: "The fact that you would

3625:

by searching solely on Academic Search Complete rather than say Google. It is my hope that admins will not simply look at the comments in the AfD, but also be open-minded to these sorts of possibilities. Now, obviously not every fictional character is going to have a whole book written about him,

1439:

I don't want a promise :). I just want you to know that you should be careful (as I'm sure you always are when editing) around the deletion area. No offense meant, no promise needed, and you are of course free to branch off into the deletion area after you become a administrator. Sorry if I came

3848:

This is absolutely nonsensical. Being civil is all about keeping a discussion focused on useful things, rather than degenerating into violent conversation; in the context of an editor review, it's discussing the editor at hand. It's not uncivil or a personal attack to provide solicited feedback or

3616:

I will of course keep that in mind as I am always open to reconsider my stance before an RfA closes. My main concern is that in some of these AfDs, some claim that sources cannot be found and then when they are still dismiss them anyway. So, it is important to me that admins take note of when an

178:

FAC can be a stressful time for nominators and reviewers alike. But above all, I am constantly struck by Karanacs's good sense and good humor: I have not once seen her be brusque or dismissive; far from it, she endlessly goes out of her way to show her appreciation of other people's work, even as

85:

nominated was shot down in a fairly spectacular fireball — but that said, I'd still like to nominate Karanacs for your consideration. I freely admit to not having heard of her until a month ago, when I was asking round looking for new admin material and her name was suggested to me. Having spent a

1399:

Karanacs does not have to make any such promise, (but she did). If she suddenly goes berserk and decides to clear out CSD or XfDs, I'm confident based on her editing skills and habits that she'll do so with the same meticulous attention that she's done everything else on wiki. Edit wherever you

303:

reviewer; by definition that means I'm often embroiled in wiki-stress. I believe that many (but certainly not all) conflicts occur because of an ignorance of or misinterpretation of WP policy, WP processes, or article-specific facts. Generally the best way to diffuse these is to explain why I am

253:

As mentioned, I am primarily a content editor. However, when I need a break from research or FAC-stress I often look for little tasks to do (assessing for wiki projects, recent changes patrolling, category cleanup etc). Having administrator tools would allow me to expand the pool of potential

3692:

Seriously! In the concept of "constructive criticism," the emphasis should be on the "constructive" aspect. I do not see Karanac's comments as being constructive. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but no special investment is required to present the opinion in a positive manner. And for the

231:

asked if I would be interested in becoming an administrator I took a 24-hour break to consider my answer. I have never actively aspired to be an administrator; my edits have been in places where I tried to be useful. I am first and foremost a content editor and that will remain my priority.

312:, and if I feel I can't do that at the moment, I try to walk away for a bit before coming back. If it looks like the other person is getting overheated, sometimes I disengage for a while just to let them calm down. I'm human, though; I'm sure I've made mistakes, though hopefully not too many. 122:

somehow found its way onto my watchlist), and I'd trust her entirely to use the delete button appropriately. More to the point, while she might not plan to do a lot of admin-drudgery, we have here a demonstrably committed and trustworthy editor who's willing to help where she can, and I think

4008:

Closing deletion debates is an admin task. Notability is frequently brought up in deletion debates. There is no such thing as "WP notability", just notability. I also think Karanacs is an excellent content contributor, but you don't need to be an admin to do that. I never said Karanacs was a

2831:- I extend good faith to the editor using the admin tools for the benefit of the project. On a side note, the editor should avoid using bad faith comments towards fellow editors. The "deliberately misleading" comment made me think twice on whether to support or post a Neutral !vote. Cheers, 282:

had noticed that I've brought several Texas-related articles to FAC and recruited me for the project. Although I got the credit for the FA promotion, the final product was the result of a collaboration between at least a dozen people: image copyright specialists, copy editors, MOS experts,

98:

or any of the other places wannabes are expected to hang out. To me, that's a positive, not a negative; she's an editor who realises that without content, Knowledge is just Facebook for ugly people, and works steadily and unobtrusively to keep our content the best on the net. (But she's not

1912:- for nothing more than the mindboggling nature of the Opposes. Are people flipping serious, and opposing because Karanacs was insufficiently fluffy in telling the fellow that she opposed him as an admin and here's why? It would never remotely occur to me to oppose a nomination for 1672:- this is the first RfA I have ever voted in. Karanacs is one of the most highly valued content editors I know. I am honored that she takes an interest in my articles and gives them a peek or two. I wanted to support as soon as I saw this was an idea she was entertaining. In fact, 2725:

An excellant editor, the only problem I saw with this user was that listed below. While Karanacs IMO did not handle the situation to the best of her ability, I view this as an isolated incident and I prefer not to hold grudges. Other than this I trust this user very much. I'm an

89:

All the "doesn't need the tools" opposers may as well get their opposes in now, as she certainly doesn't fit the "traditional" admin candidate pattern. Hardly any discussions at AfD; a relatively low number of posts to AIV; never been a regular hanger-outer at

2284:. Karanacs has superior communication skills and a strong history of collaboration, my two big points. She's willing to step back from her usual tasks and look at other things as well, as she identifies in her statements above. An excellent candidate. 470:

edits. Again, what emerges is that Karanacs is an editor who not only adds content and is an extraordinarily thorough reviewer; she is also willing to step in and help other editors even if this means tackling the most difficult issues. I am in awe.

3973:, to which you take exception, is very clear and reasonable. I'm not entirely sure I see what your problem is with it. Perhaps I'm missing something from the broader debate; but again, what she says there makes eminent sense. Do you not agree? -- 1244:. WP:FAC would not be the same without her, and this is a model RfA for a candidate that doesn't have any current plans to use the admin buttons a lot. (In fact, if she ever starting spending her days at XfD, people at WP:FAC would howl.) - Dan 4081:

Switching vote from Oppose, as per Karanacs' input on the talk page relating to the Editor Review brouhaha. While I feel the whole matter could've been handled better from the beginning, I see no reason to continue opposing this candidate.

3739:.My oppose is a complicated one. You are no doubt a awesome editor, no doubt about that. But my concerns are with the nomination, which to me messed up the entire RFA. "does not need the admin tools", not eaxactly a reassuring statement. 1808:– a consistent contributor, with the added benefit of providing quality article building to the project, with over a year’s experience.. No civility problems, even considering the one mentioned in a oppose opinion. Best of luck to you. 3892:

I appreciate that the conversation's moved to the talkpage but I'll still reply here; as the nominator Gears is referring to, I think that in this instance "oppose per nom" is a valid statement. I deliberately covered the arguments

2054:

the tools or not at present is largely irrelevant; once she has them, plenty of opportunities will present themselves where they are in fact needed... and I trust her absolutely to use them with good judgement and forethought.

1079:

Per jbmurray and all of the supporters above. Also, the answers to the questions, and her comments in the "error of punctuation" debacle, prove to me that she has excellent judgment and is extremely thoughtful. I have reviewed

3598:

If the reliable independent sources aren't there, then the topic probably doesn't need an independent article...yet. If it means anything, Le Grand Roi, I occasionally look for a fiction article to bring up to WP standards;

422: 182:

I also see Karanacs frequently intervening on fellow editors' user talk pages. She always finds a way to defuse potentially volatile situations, with her good sense and courtesy pouring oil on troubled waters.

3584:(contrary to the stance there, the vast majority of episode articles should be better referenced, which most can as just about any episode has been reviewed somewhere, not outright removed). Sincerely, -- 554:

I've followed this user's contribs for a while. Excellent article work, good balance between namespaces, experience in admin-related areas, as well as other things. I've been waiting for this for a while.

3553:, so while I am a bit concerned about notability interpretation as relates to likely interpretation of arguments in AfDs, the candidate does seem to have done some commendable work elsewhere. Best, -- 3384:. Since the incident on April 17, Karanacs has not offered me one, which "gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin." I hate to be a party pooper, but I apologise. I'm an 3743:

and yet you are a great editor. I really think that you need to work on your attittude(if it hasn't changed since the incident) and get someone else to nominate you(no offence to first nominator).

3767:, I've been suggesting that people should not support simply on the basis of the nominator's statement. It would seem consistent to ask you to think twice about opposing on that basis, too. -- 3955:. It looks like this editor does good work with WikiProject Texas. But if Karanacs is made an admin and gets anywhere near a fiction topic or the subject of notability, I predict bad things. -- 3897:

Karanacs in the nomination as well (as the reasons to support, which IMO obviously far outweigh any negatives), so I think opposing on the basis of the issues I raised is perfectly valid here.

1381:. As long as you stick with your promise about not getting involved in areas that you have only limited experience in (you cited AfD for example). Other than that, you're a fine candidate! 3928: 3617:

AfD has a bunch of "non-notable", "unreferenced" comments as delete rationales and whether or not these comments are necessarily true or accurate. We have tons of articles that look like

3811:, request feedback from the community; it's not quite fair to qualify requested feedback as gross incivility. Editor review should be eliminated if people can't speak freely there. 3132:

I could have sworn I'd already supported this nom, but oh well. Karanacs is a solid editor with a clear understanding of policy. I have no doubts she'll make an excellent admin. -

106:

the tools, but would find them more useful than most, and has more than adequately demonstrated her trustworthiness. Her deleted contributions show a consistent well-judged use of

175:, where she demonstrates immense dedication, thoughtfulness, and a wealth of constructive criticism on a regular basis. She is undoubtedly one of the pillars of the FAC process. 168:

project. She showed utmost patience and generosity with these newbie Knowledge editors, guiding and teaching them as they wrote three Featured Articles and eight Good Articles.

3944: 3932: 3581: 3546: 1151:

per everybody above. Looks like a brilliant editor with excellent qualities for adminship. "putting individual stub-petals together to make article-flowers" is so poetic! ;) --

240:

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

190:

Karanacs is a model Knowledge editor; she has certainly been one of the models I have tried to emulate. I could not think of anyone I would trust more with the admin tools. --

990:, every one of my interactions with the candidate have been overwhelmingly positive. Displays excellent judgment and temperament on top of being a tremendous contributor. -- 1892:

As much as I wanted to be the first Aggie Admin, I can't be selfish here. She's good and will only benefit Knowledge with these tools. I can't think of a better candidate!

1284:, this editor meets my minimum, "would I trust this person to use responsibly?" criteria and exceeds many times over. The vast content and process contributions (esp at 441:

Note the way in which she remains civil and respectful, at the same time as she is firm about the problem itself, which she takes the trouble to explain at some length.

852:

I'm not personally familiar with Karancs, but her userpage and answers are those of a level-headed, intellectually curious editor with common sense. Looks good to me.

293:

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?

1540:. I haven't supported anyone recently, but Karen is one of my favorite pure article writers and a joy to collaborate with. Editors like her make the project great.-- 432:

But you should judge for yourself. Here are the diffs in which she raises the important but tricky question about possible misuse of sources, that is, plagiarism:

4159: 3871: 3495: 489:

I should further say that a number of other people voted or commented on this RfA prematurely. I took it upon myself to notify them that the RfA was now active.

333: 1830:- knowledgeable in all the right places. No one is perfect and it would appear on review of Karanacs' edits that the civility issues mark a rare departure from 3580:

They are ones that seem to be overly exclusionary, which is a concern for anyone who will have deletion tools. Anyway, to answer your question, such ones as

4177: 3233:: great editor...Knows policies...Strong and long experience and wiki experience... No reasons to believe any possible misuse of the 'power' buttons. -- 373: 429:. In fact, however, I believe that her contributions to that FAC, as well as to the user talk pages of involved editors, were absolutely exemplary. 3764: 1545: 86:

fair while looking over her history, I'm honoured to be the one to suggest her for the mop, as well as surprised she hasn't been put forward before.

4114: 4057: 3808: 3740: 3446:

I concur. What EotW did could be viewed as self-promotion, and Karanacs is entitled to his opinion. I don't believe this was incivility at all. --

3377: 2953:- excellent editor! Great article work. Great Knowledge-space participation. Excellent knowledge and understanding displayed. It's all there! :-) 2231: 571:

Karanacs is one of the most active and efficient FAC contributors on the project. Also some excellent article work. It's a pleasure to support.

792: 4117:

was "deliberately," and as I mentioned, most of us say things we later regret. If she regretted it, I'd switch to "support" in a heartbeat.

3475: 3406: 3387: 3056: 2729: 598: 360: 1316:- Editor was polite and helpful during a past FA review of mine. Gave lots of good advise and went out of his way to give extra feedback. — 1541: 1024: 670:. I've seen Karanacs around at FAC quite a bit, and I've got no reason to suppose that she wouldn't behave sensibly as an administrator. -- 452:. In all cases, what strikes me is her sensitivity, thoughtfulness, and level-headedness in the midst of what is something of a maelstrom. 2593:

Doesn't really need a comment. Excellent reviewing work at FAC, excellent content work, civil and intelligent. Not much more can be said.

762:), showing the range in her researching and writing skills. She is also consistently one of the busiest and most thorough reviewers of 2686:- consistently informed fac reviews indicate a firm grasp of relevant policy and commitment to thankless tasks. Will be a great admin. 3219: 2941: 751: 561: 1834:

her usual cordial exchanges with other users. No one is perfect and I believe Karanacs would make a good addition to the admin team.

812:

Thanks for finding that, Sandy...what a nice welcome-back present :) (although I'm a bit ashamed that you found that before I did!)

3628: 3586: 3555: 1916:

other reason than someone had told me something I didn't like, and I wanted proper subservience before I withdrew that opposition.

1356: 2532:

Looking through the contributions, I've come to the bold conlcusion that there is literally no reason she shouldn't be an admin.--

403: 367: 3621:

and which I typically see in AfDs as "delete, unreferenced, no assertion of notability," and yet in but a few hours I found that

2851:, since you're doing a good job to improve the 'Battle of the Alamo' article. I can't wait for you to handle the mop with care. - 2797: 2333: 1170: 397: 33: 17: 2305:

flags up no obvious problems. I think the candidate will make a productive administrator, and I'm happy to support the request.

1947: 329: 99:

exclusively a denizen of the mainspace; she has over 4000 non-mainspace edits, spread across all kinds of nooks and corners.)

3982: 3883: 3776: 3507: 3435: 2811: 2674: 2548: 2481: 2404: 2302: 1741: 1591: 529: 513: 480: 353: 199: 78: 4103:

above. Your contributions are phenomenal, but I cannot bring myself to Support a nomination given such recent incivility.

2631:. I don't always agree with her, but she's trustworthy, bright and hard-working. She will make a better-than-average admin. 3516:

Except that I want to add here that using an RfA as a lever to exact an apology is tangential to the aims of this process.

2420:

super smart, hard working, helpful, mature and patient. I've been impressed with everything I've seen from this editor. --

1655:

especially for the tough comment at Editor Review - we need more blood on the floor there (and then we'll have less here).

1173:(see right). At least, that's what I think it's meant to represent, although I agree it more closely resembles "dropping a 1209: 1160: 658: 3380:

forces me to oppose. While I know I might have been on the strong side sometimes, I always give the user that I offended

919:. An astoundingly overqualified candidate. A look through the 'tribs and talkpage was a pleasure trip. Karanacs knows 3260: 2898: 1253: 2346:; excellent article writer and Texas historian. I have no reservations about her ability to handle the extra buttons. 3454: 3078: 2443: 1635: 1231: 3849:

even disagree vehemently: criticism is permitted and is vital to the operation and improvement of an open community.

2976:(the Knowledge article, not the person), so I can attest to Karanacs' good work. And I believe we may be ready for 2252: 4136: 3785:

If you read past that part of my comment you woud notice that that is just a small reason and is not to reassuring.

3660:

I am moving my vote to neutral, as per Karanacs' comments on the discussion page linked to Editor Review brouhaha.

3185:

A review of this user's contribs and answers to the questions, I see no reason to oppose at this time. Thank you.

3070: 1300: 675: 58: 1128:: elaboration I might have offered thereupon has already found eloquent expression above - a laudable Wikipedian. 3481: 3412: 3393: 3051: 2858: 2735: 594: 3998: 2875: 1509: 1019: 956: 2074: 1169:

It's not my metaphor, much as I'd love to claim credit; it's drawn from the logo of the now-virtually-defunct

3550: 2459: 1969: 1759: 1288:), while not specifically a tool-intensive place, can only serve to increase the strength of my support. ⇔ 1115: 755: 3836: 3819: 3793: 3751: 3447: 2985: 2939: 2855: 2439: 2256: 1628: 1226: 1067: 803: 782: 743: 575: 559: 4037: 2070: 1627:

No reason to oppose. When you feel you need to use the tools, I trust you'll use them well. Good luck. --

4132: 3141: 3067: 2636: 2142:

Excellent article writer with solid policy knowledge. One of the most active and dedicated reviewers at

1780: 1447: 1388: 1350: 1289: 998: 696: 671: 426: 54: 4158:

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

3650:

do this in such as public area gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin."

1110: 907: 157:, who is without the shadow of a doubt one of the best-qualified editors I could imagine for the role. 4131:

Takes all sorts I suppose. If she regretted it, I might well switch to "oppose" in a heartbeat. ;-) --

3090:-At least someone on wikipedia is getting something done. God, 10,000 edits, and you're not an admin 2665:

as co-nominator. It is gratifying to see the community's appreciation for this magnificent editor. --

4087: 3907: 3698: 3665: 3655: 3478: 3409: 3390: 3190: 3102: 3048: 2981: 2791: 2732: 2617: 2329: 1368: 1187: 1063: 890: 621: 589: 133: 4140: 4126: 4107: 4091: 4073: 4041: 4033: 4018: 4003: 3986: 3964: 3915: 3887: 3843: 3823: 3800: 3780: 3758: 3723: 3702: 3687: 3669: 3634: 3611: 3592: 3575: 3561: 3529: 3511: 3489: 3466: 3439: 3420: 3360: 3351: 3329: 3309: 3288: 3265: 3242: 3225: 3194: 3179: 3163: 3146: 3124: 3107: 3082: 3061: 3035: 3018: 3005: 2989: 2964: 2943: 2927: 2903: 2880: 2861: 2843: 2823: 2778: 2761: 2743: 2717: 2690: 2678: 2657: 2640: 2623: 2602: 2585: 2568: 2550: 2524: 2507: 2486: 2463: 2446: 2429: 2408: 2386: 2372: 2356: 2338: 2313: 2293: 2276: 2259: 2243: 2225: 2209: 2189: 2172: 2155: 2134: 2120: 2078: 2061: 2038: 2022: 2004: 1989: 1973: 1952: 1924: 1904: 1880: 1864: 1845: 1822: 1800: 1787: 1762: 1747: 1711: 1685: 1664: 1647: 1619: 1595: 1572: 1549: 1532: 1513: 1495: 1474: 1453: 1434: 1420: 1394: 1373: 1363: 1335: 1308: 1276: 1257: 1236: 1213: 1195: 1164: 1143: 1120: 1084:" contributions and am confident that Karen will be a great administrator. (Excellent writer, too!) 1071: 1054: 1031: 1003: 982: 960: 943: 911: 894: 877: 861: 838: 821: 807: 786: 722: 701: 679: 662: 641: 629: 603: 580: 563: 517: 484: 224: 203: 141: 62: 4014: 3993: 3960: 3943:, I could not support this editor being an admin. Just about every statement Karanacs supported at 3940: 3281: 3031: 2870: 2774: 2272: 2001: 1942: 1876: 1859: 1841: 1810: 1772: 1722: 1614: 1505: 1139: 1093: 1044: 1014: 977: 952: 3712: 3676: 2046:

I've seen Karanacs's work in many places (first running across her during jbmurray's descent into

1893: 1463: 903: 827: 3978: 3952: 3879: 3772: 3607: 3503: 3431: 2960: 2839: 2805: 2709: 2670: 2543: 2479: 2425: 2400: 2222: 2195: 2164: 2014: 1965: 1756: 1731: 1698: 1585: 1430: 1407: 1325: 930: 874: 857: 817: 771: 525: 509: 476: 347: 220: 195: 115: 91: 72: 444:

For Karanacs's contributions on user pages during this most tempestuous of FACs, please look at

2146:, she is unusually adept at communicating difficult news. I have yet to see her lose her cool. 1755:. A great editor and will make a valuable admin. Please don't stop writing articles, though! 3829: 3812: 3786: 3744: 3571: 3305: 3212: 3120: 2936: 2852: 2653: 2520: 2382: 2368: 2185: 2151: 2130: 1660: 1458:

As a recommendation, your first act should be to block this wacko!!! BTW, congrats on making

1271: 1205: 1156: 1039:

Everyything I know and have read about this editor leads me to believe she is very mop-worthy

796: 775: 654: 572: 556: 501: 279: 1519: 3256: 3234: 3133: 2894: 2632: 2289: 2239: 2168: 1564: 1492: 1443: 1384: 1342: 1249: 1081: 991: 688: 923:

what Knowledge is here for and what needs to still be done. Easy, no hesitation support.

4083: 3900: 3711:

her too. Some of her comments can be an assessment and need not be directly constructive.

3694: 3661: 3651: 3524: 3381: 3186: 3176: 3095: 2920: 2787: 2611: 2598: 2581: 2322: 2115: 1681: 1180: 886: 717: 614: 305: 228: 126: 421:

to this RfA has helped me with this task, commenting on Karanacs's interventions during

4122: 4104: 4069: 4010: 3956: 3599: 3484: 3415: 3396: 3357: 3319: 3272: 3159: 3027: 2819: 2770: 2752: 2738: 2500: 2354: 2268: 2056: 1998: 1937: 1917: 1871: 1852: 1836: 1796: 1608: 1425:

I promise I'll find a different way to go berserk that does not involve admin-tools ;)

1129: 1089: 1040: 970: 111: 123:

whatever help someone as good as this wants to give should be welcomed with open arms.

4171: 4061: 3974: 3875: 3768: 3603: 3499: 3427: 2955: 2932: 2833: 2801: 2701: 2666: 2564: 2533: 2473: 2421: 2396: 2218: 2143: 2047: 1704: 1692: 1581: 1459: 1426: 1413: 1401: 1317: 1285: 936: 924: 870: 853: 813: 767: 763: 747: 505: 472: 456: 343: 325: 309: 300: 216: 191: 172: 165: 161: 154: 148: 119: 107: 95: 68: 3850: 3567: 3301: 3116: 3014: 2999: 2687: 2649: 2538: 2516: 2378: 2364: 2181: 2147: 2126: 2087: 2032: 1982: 1961: 1656: 1605:

This user is not a corpulent snout-nosed creature of pinkish complexion. He swears!

1266: 1201: 1152: 739: 731: 650: 275: 4060:'s edit to the Knowledge Signpost as "...deliberately misleading..." seems not to 1518:

Support, per LessHeard vanU. Admins who work on FAs are what we need more of... ·

81:) - I know RFA nominations from me are rare as hen's teeth, and the only editor I 1200:

Yes, the picture is a little less than inspiring. It's a nice metaphor though. --

3472:

going to pass. I do not hold gudges, and good luck on adminship Karanacs!I'm an

3251: 2889: 2698:

I trust her judgment, and a talented article writer furthermore. No hesitation,

2455: 2285: 2235: 1558: 1504:- just seems like someone who can be trusted with them is all (that is needed). 1488: 1245: 735: 3948: 2103:

Automatic support for incivil article builders. No, seriously, it's been taken

179:

she never compromises on the very highest standards for Knowledge's best work.

3517: 3339: 3172: 2977: 2914: 2594: 2577: 2109: 1677: 710: 638: 4152:

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

885:—an excellent Wikipedian who most certainly can be trusted with the tools. -- 4118: 4100: 4065: 3155: 2815: 2495: 2347: 2083:

Support; I've been meaning to ask to nom you for a while but was slacking.

455:

I should also inform readers that Karanacs has had an incident reported on

187:

drawn into the murky waters of wiki-drama that so often flood the project.

3626:

but there are more sources out there than I think some realize. Best, --

3208: 2973: 2560: 2395:. I'm sorry I missed it! Thanks so much for coming back and checking. -- 2306: 1933: 1265:, I believe sysopping this user would be a net positive for the project. 1174: 759: 271: 2869:. Very talented writer, here for the right reasons, has good judgement. 2814:), and of course also per some excellent contributions to the project. 2301:: the nomination statements say it all, and a quick review of Karanacs' 1462:

that 100 wikipedians agree about ANYTHING is an amazing accomplishment.

1104: 171:

Since then, I have frequently seen Karanacs as she reviews articles at

4162:

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

3582:

Knowledge:Television episodes/RFC Episode_Notability#Statement by Kww

3204: 649:-- per the Ima Hog article! I love that, well done! Best of luck, -- 500:

I am fully confident that I remained fully within the guidelines of

528:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 3828:

If you call being uncivil speaking your mind, then you a mistaken.

153:

I am delighted that my very first RfA co-nomination should be for

730:, simply the best. Karanacs has been principle author on seven 160:

I first came into contact with Karanacs though her work with the

1101: 2163:

Obviously Wiki do need more reviewers with good writing skills

2050:), and she has been nothing less than impressive. Whether she 210:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2203: 504:, but want to be upfront about what I have done. Thanks. -- 3426:

want to criticize) rather than on EotW's. Many thanks. --

270:

I am most proud of my contribution to bringing the article

3929:

Knowledge:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3300:

Seems like a great person. Would never abuse the tools.

264:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

3970: 3936: 3622: 3618: 2392: 826:

Umm...there were others involved in those articles ;-)

498: 496: 494: 492: 490: 467: 464: 460: 449: 445: 439: 437: 435: 433: 418: 391: 385: 379: 2251:

Solid editor with productive contributions, and meets

278:

in time to be on the main page for April Fool's Day.

2217:

I've only had productive interactions with this user.

3945:

Knowledge:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability

3933:

Knowledge:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability

3547:

Knowledge:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability

3250:

Editor will make a solid and helpful administrator.

766:, as well as a frequent author or copyeditor on the 3270:

You've already supported above @ #99. (indented). –

3171:- see no reason not to. work with FAC looks good -- 869:No concern at all that they would abuse the tools. 2377:Why was my earlier support comment deleted? :( 1580:trustworthy and helpful to the process :) Cheers, 1340:I have seen nice work from this user at WP:FAC. – 1062:per ANI. Thank you jbmurray for including that. 3203:- No problems here. Will wield the mop much like 4056:: I would support, but the characterization of 3693:record, EotW is doing a great job on Knowledge. 2997:I see no reason the user would abuse the tools. 2321:Has the experience, and a great editor overall. 247:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 2391:Looks like an accident that took place at the 3807:Editors submitting to editor review, such as 8: 3623:whole books were written about the character 3376:I am impressed with your FA work. However, 102:She is, in my opinion, someone who may not 3951:on meta, which is linked from the policy 3927:, from reading this editor's comments at 3870:I'm moving subsequent discussion over to 3494:I'm moving subsequent discussion over to 2911:per excellent noms and review of edits. 1721:- If only for the answer to question 1. 902:. Article builders are we need more of. 524:Please keep discussion constructive and 3809:Knowledge:Editor review/Editorofthewiki 2232:Knowledge:Editor review/Editorofthewiki 2230:Strongly per article contributions and 3566:Which of the 41 sections are they in? 2194:Does excellent work for the signpost. 1850:There we go with the sexism again! ;) 1400:decide you can be helpful, Karana-cs. 1997:with no reservations whatsoever. — 7: 3337:Excellent contributor and editor! -- 2769:Seems like an excellent candidate... 3602:is the most recent I've worked on. 752:History of Texas A&M University 588:great editor, very level-headed. -- 412:Additional comment by co-nominator 24: 4178:Successful requests for adminship 164:as she helped my students in the 3047:all about the mop and bucket. - 2454:, positives outweigh negatives. 968:Trusted user. Good contributor. 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3549:. I am, however, happy to see 2648:trustworthy reader and editor. 1542:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 1500:No apparent need for the tools 3403:(switching to Support) I'm an 530:Special:Contributions/Karanacs 332:. For the edit count, see the 1: 4113:The only uncivil word in the 3741:you have been grossly uncivil 2972:I was slightly involved with 1985:weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 3969:Hmm. I actually think that 3630:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 3588:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 3557:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1615:Make articles, not wikidrama 3658:) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3026:I believe he will do fine. 764:featured article candidates 328:'s edit summary usage with 236:Questions for the candidate 166:Murder, Madness, and Mayhem 4194: 4141:23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 4127:20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 4108:10:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 4092:19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 4074:02:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 4042:16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 4032:per Le Grand, Pixelface. 4019:06:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 4004:16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3987:16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3965:03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3916:02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3888:09:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3844:05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3824:05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3801:05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3781:05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3759:05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3724:03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3703:12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3688:04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3670:19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3635:03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3612:01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3593:01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3576:01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3562:00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3545:per stances supported in 3530:05:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 3512:02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3490:00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3467:00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3440:20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 3421:02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3401:20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 3361:15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3352:15:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3330:14:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3310:13:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3289:14:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3266:13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3243:10:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3226:04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3195:03:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3180:01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3164:23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 3147:19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 3125:16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 3108:15:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 3083:13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 3062:00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 3036:20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 3019:16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 3006:15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 2990:02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 2965:18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2944:17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2928:16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2904:16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2881:16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2862:12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2844:11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2824:08:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2779:05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2762:03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2744:02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2718:01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2691:21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2679:18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2658:15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2641:03:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2624:00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2603:22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2586:21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2569:20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2551:15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2525:13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2508:12:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2487:10:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2464:10:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2447:06:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2430:04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2409:01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2387:00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2373:16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2357:00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2339:23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2314:23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2294:19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2277:19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2260:17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2244:15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2226:15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2210:14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2190:13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2173:13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2156:13:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2135:12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2121:09:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2079:07:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2062:07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2039:07:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2030:Good steady contributor. 2023:06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2005:06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1990:05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1974:05:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1953:04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1925:04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1905:04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1881:04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1865:03:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1846:03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1823:03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1801:02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1788:02:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1763:01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1748:01:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1712:00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1686:00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1665:00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1648:23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1620:22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1596:22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1573:22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1557:definitive trustworthy. — 1550:21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1533:21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1514:21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1496:20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1475:03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 1454:21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1435:21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1421:20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1395:20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1374:19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1364:19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1336:19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1309:18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1277:18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1258:18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1237:18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1214:18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1196:18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1165:18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1144:18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1121:18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1072:17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1060:Reasonably strong support 1055:17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1032:17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1004:17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 983:17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 961:17:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 944:17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 912:16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 895:16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 878:16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 862:16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 839:04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 822:19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 808:19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 787:16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 723:16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 702:16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 680:16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 663:16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 642:16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 630:16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 604:16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 581:16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 564:16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 518:04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 485:04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 225:16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 63:16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 4155:Please do not modify it. 756:Texas A&M University 204:13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 142:20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 53:Final: (119/4/3); ended 3937:most recent reply to me 3860:at 08:30, June 17, 2008 3551:User:Karanacs/Barnstars 2888:No reason for concern. 2097:at 08:30, June 17, 2008 1770:excellent contributor. 1085: 276:featured article status 38:Please do not modify it 3992:that type of concern. 3953:Knowledge is not paper 3949:Knowledge is not paper 1962:French claims on Texas 744:Lawrence Sullivan Ross 116:this storm in a teacup 2530:Gigantisaurus Support 1960:if there are no more 552:Beat the noms support 427:Roman Catholic Church 215:I accept, thank you. 34:request for adminship 4115:whole thingamabobber 4058:User:Editorofthewiki 3378:incivility like this 3043:We need more admins 2751:, no reason not to. 2663:Enthusiastic Support 1981:, most definitely. 687:. No problems here. 341:Links for Karanacs: 3765:another current RfA 1869:I stand corrected. 1379:Conditional Support 3350: 3317:seems fine to me. 3211:. Or maybe not. -- 3004: 2716: 2069:. Great editor. -- 532:before commenting. 39: 4062:assume good faith 3862: 3449:Mizu onna sango15 3338: 3264: 3144: 3081: 3060: 2998: 2926: 2902: 2699: 2442: 2393:next support vote 2224: 2208: 2099: 2044:Complete support. 2012:- superb editor. 1743: 1738: 1708: 1630:Mizu onna sango15 1606: 1417: 1372: 1362: 1304: 1297: 1051: 940: 732:featured articles 709:—Just excellent! 601: 578: 463:and it concerned 310:assume good faith 280:User:SandyGeorgia 147:Co-nomination by 37: 4185: 4157: 4133:Malleus Fatuorum 4001: 3996: 3914: 3912: 3905: 3851: 3841: 3834: 3816: 3798: 3791: 3756: 3749: 3737:Very Weak Oppose 3721: 3685: 3633: 3631: 3591: 3589: 3560: 3558: 3527: 3522: 3463: 3460: 3457: 3450: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3326: 3287: 3284: 3278: 3254: 3222: 3215: 3142: 3139: 3136: 3105: 3100: 3077: 3075: 3054: 3002: 2963: 2958: 2925: 2923: 2917: 2912: 2892: 2878: 2873: 2836: 2759: 2715: 2713: 2707: 2704: 2620: 2614: 2546: 2541: 2536: 2494:, very much so. 2438: 2352: 2325: 2311: 2221: 2206: 2200: 2198: 2088: 2086: 2059: 2035: 2021: 2019: 1987: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1921: 1902: 1879: 1855: 1844: 1821: 1795:- of course. -- 1783: 1775: 1742: 1736: 1732: 1726: 1709: 1706: 1701: 1695: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1631: 1611: 1604: 1530: 1487:per iridescent. 1472: 1452: 1418: 1415: 1410: 1404: 1393: 1371: 1359: 1353: 1348: 1345: 1332: 1329:Come Speak To Me 1322: 1302: 1293: 1234: 1229: 1194: 1192: 1185: 1136: 1118: 1113: 1096: 1087: 1049: 1027: 1022: 1017: 1001: 996: 973: 941: 938: 933: 927: 836: 800: 779: 770:written for the 720: 715: 699: 693: 672:Malleus Fatuorum 628: 626: 619: 593: 576: 419:premature oppose 407: 366: 319:General comments 140: 138: 131: 55:The Rambling Man 4193: 4192: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4160:this nomination 4153: 4050: 3999: 3994: 3908: 3901: 3898: 3856: 3837: 3830: 3814: 3794: 3787: 3752: 3745: 3713: 3677: 3629: 3627: 3587: 3585: 3556: 3554: 3525: 3518: 3461: 3458: 3455: 3448: 3369: 3346: 3343: 3340: 3320: 3282: 3273: 3271: 3224: 3220: 3213: 3137: 3134: 3103: 3096: 3071: 3000: 2956: 2954: 2921: 2915: 2913: 2876: 2871: 2849:Support as well 2834: 2753: 2710: 2705: 2702: 2700: 2618: 2612: 2544: 2539: 2534: 2515:- looks great! 2484: 2348: 2336: 2323: 2307: 2202: 2196: 2180:- Great Admin. 2119: 2093: 2084: 2057: 2033: 2015: 2013: 1983: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1919: 1894: 1870: 1853: 1835: 1809: 1781: 1773: 1746: 1737: 1734: 1724: 1705: 1699: 1693: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1629: 1618: 1607: 1520: 1464: 1441: 1414: 1408: 1402: 1382: 1369:Nousernamesleft 1357: 1351: 1343: 1326: 1318: 1296: 1232: 1227: 1225:— definitely. → 1188: 1181: 1178: 1142: 1130: 1116: 1111: 1094: 1048: 1025: 1020: 1015: 999: 992: 971: 951:- obviously. -- 937: 931: 925: 828: 798: 777: 718: 711: 697: 689: 622: 615: 612: 590:ImmortalGoddezz 548: 539: 359: 342: 321: 299:I'm a frequent 238: 134: 127: 124: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4191: 4189: 4181: 4180: 4170: 4169: 4165: 4164: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4094: 4076: 4049: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3874:. Thanks. -- 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3854: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3600:Barney Stinson 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3498:. Thanks. -- 3444: 3443: 3442: 3368: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3354: 3332: 3312: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3238: 3231:Strong Support 3228: 3218: 3198: 3182: 3166: 3149: 3127: 3110: 3085: 3064: 3038: 3021: 3008: 2992: 2967: 2951:Strong support 2948: 2947: 2946: 2906: 2883: 2864: 2846: 2826: 2781: 2764: 2746: 2720: 2693: 2684:Strong support 2681: 2660: 2643: 2626: 2605: 2588: 2571: 2553: 2527: 2510: 2489: 2482: 2466: 2449: 2432: 2418:Strong Support 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2359: 2341: 2334: 2316: 2296: 2279: 2262: 2246: 2228: 2212: 2192: 2175: 2158: 2137: 2123: 2113: 2101: 2091: 2081: 2064: 2041: 2025: 2007: 1992: 1976: 1955: 1927: 1907: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1825: 1803: 1790: 1768:Strong support 1765: 1750: 1733: 1729: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1667: 1650: 1622: 1612: 1598: 1575: 1552: 1535: 1516: 1506:LessHeard vanU 1498: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1440:off wrong! :) 1376: 1366: 1338: 1311: 1294: 1279: 1260: 1242:Strong support 1239: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1146: 1138: 1123: 1108: 1074: 1057: 1045: 1034: 1006: 985: 963: 953:Peter Andersen 946: 914: 897: 880: 864: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 793:press coverage 728:Strong support 725: 704: 682: 665: 644: 632: 606: 583: 566: 547: 544: 543: 542: 538: 535: 521: 423:the recent FAC 409: 408: 338: 337: 330:mathbot's tool 320: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 287: 286: 285: 284: 258: 257: 256: 255: 237: 234: 213: 212: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4190: 4179: 4176: 4175: 4173: 4163: 4161: 4156: 4150: 4149: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4111: 4109: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4095: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4080: 4077: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4052: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4028: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4002: 3997: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3923: 3917: 3913: 3911: 3906: 3904: 3896: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3872:the talk page 3869: 3863: 3861: 3858: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3842: 3840: 3835: 3833: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3799: 3797: 3792: 3790: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3757: 3755: 3750: 3748: 3742: 3738: 3735: 3725: 3722: 3720: 3718: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3686: 3684: 3682: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3657: 3653: 3648: 3644: 3636: 3632: 3624: 3620: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3590: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3559: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3531: 3528: 3523: 3521: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3496:the talk page 3493: 3492: 3491: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3480: 3477: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3465: 3464: 3451: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3411: 3408: 3402: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3392: 3389: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3359: 3355: 3353: 3349: 3336: 3333: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3325: 3324: 3316: 3313: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3296: 3290: 3285: 3279: 3276: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3262: 3258: 3253: 3249: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3232: 3229: 3227: 3223: 3216: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3199: 3197: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3167: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3150: 3148: 3145: 3140: 3131: 3128: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3106: 3101: 3099: 3093: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3080: 3079:(and friends) 3076: 3074: 3069: 3065: 3063: 3058: 3053: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3039: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3009: 3007: 3003: 2996: 2993: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2968: 2966: 2962: 2959: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2938: 2934: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2924: 2918: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2887: 2884: 2882: 2879: 2874: 2868: 2865: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2847: 2845: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2837: 2830: 2827: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2782: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2760: 2758: 2757: 2750: 2747: 2745: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2724: 2721: 2719: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2697: 2694: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2661: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2621: 2615: 2609: 2606: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2589: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2572: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2554: 2552: 2549: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2531: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2499: 2498: 2493: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2470: 2467: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2450: 2448: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2433: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2358: 2355: 2353: 2351: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2310: 2304: 2300: 2297: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2247: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2211: 2205: 2199: 2193: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2138: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2106: 2102: 2100: 2098: 2095: 2082: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2063: 2060: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2042: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2020: 2018: 2017:Sephiroth BCR 2011: 2008: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1996: 1993: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1980: 1977: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966:Squash Racket 1963: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1923: 1922: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1906: 1903: 1901: 1899: 1891: 1888: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1874: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1777: 1776: 1769: 1766: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1757:Mike Christie 1754: 1751: 1749: 1744: 1739: 1728: 1727: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1702: 1696: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1651: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1632: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1616: 1610: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1590: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1553: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1534: 1531: 1529: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1469: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1449: 1445: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1419: 1411: 1405: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1386: 1380: 1377: 1375: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1354: 1347: 1346: 1339: 1337: 1333: 1331: 1330: 1323: 1321: 1315: 1312: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1299: 1298: 1287: 1283: 1280: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1261: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1240: 1238: 1235: 1230: 1224: 1221: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1191: 1186: 1184: 1177:onto a crab". 1176: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1135: 1134: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1119: 1114: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1099: 1097: 1091: 1083: 1078: 1075: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1042: 1038: 1035: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1018: 1010: 1007: 1005: 1002: 997: 995: 989: 986: 984: 981: 980: 979: 975: 974: 967: 964: 962: 958: 954: 950: 947: 945: 942: 934: 928: 922: 918: 915: 913: 909: 905: 901: 898: 896: 892: 888: 884: 881: 879: 876: 872: 868: 865: 863: 859: 855: 851: 848: 840: 837: 835: 833: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 794: 790: 789: 788: 784: 780: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 748:Aggie Bonfire 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 726: 724: 721: 716: 714: 708: 705: 703: 700: 694: 692: 686: 683: 681: 677: 673: 669: 666: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 645: 643: 640: 636: 633: 631: 627: 625: 620: 618: 610: 607: 605: 600: 596: 591: 587: 584: 582: 579: 574: 570: 567: 565: 562: 560: 558: 553: 550: 549: 545: 541: 540: 536: 534: 533: 531: 527: 520: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 497: 495: 493: 491: 487: 486: 482: 478: 474: 469: 466: 462: 458: 453: 451: 447: 442: 440: 438: 436: 434: 430: 428: 424: 420: 415: 413: 405: 402: 399: 396: 393: 390: 387: 384: 381: 378: 375: 372: 369: 365: 362: 358: 355: 352: 349: 345: 340: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 322: 318: 311: 307: 302: 298: 295: 294: 292: 289: 288: 281: 277: 273: 269: 266: 265: 263: 260: 259: 252: 249: 248: 246: 243: 242: 241: 235: 233: 230: 226: 222: 218: 211: 208: 207: 206: 205: 201: 197: 193: 188: 184: 180: 176: 174: 169: 167: 163: 158: 156: 152: 150: 144: 143: 139: 137: 132: 130: 121: 120:Davy Crockett 117: 113: 109: 105: 100: 97: 93: 87: 84: 80: 77: 74: 70: 66: 65: 64: 60: 56: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4154: 4151: 4096: 4078: 4053: 4029: 3947:contradicts 3924: 3909: 3902: 3894: 3859: 3852: 3838: 3831: 3795: 3788: 3753: 3746: 3736: 3716: 3714: 3708: 3680: 3678: 3646: 3645: 3542: 3519: 3474: 3473: 3453: 3405: 3404: 3386: 3385: 3373: 3372: 3334: 3322: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3297: 3274: 3247: 3237:TinuCherian 3235: 3230: 3200: 3184: 3168: 3151: 3129: 3112: 3097: 3091: 3087: 3072: 3066:why not? - 3044: 3040: 3023: 3013: 3010: 2994: 2969: 2950: 2937:Juliancolton 2908: 2885: 2866: 2848: 2838: 2832: 2828: 2808: 2794: 2783: 2766: 2755: 2754: 2748: 2728: 2727: 2722: 2711: 2695: 2683: 2662: 2645: 2628: 2616: 2610:Looks good. 2607: 2590: 2573: 2555: 2529: 2512: 2502: 2501: 2496: 2491: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2451: 2437:Absolutely. 2434: 2417: 2361: 2349: 2343: 2328: 2327: 2318: 2308: 2298: 2281: 2264: 2257:Orderinchaos 2248: 2214: 2177: 2160: 2139: 2108: 2104: 2096: 2089: 2066: 2051: 2043: 2031: 2027: 2016: 2009: 1994: 1984: 1978: 1957: 1929: 1918: 1913: 1909: 1897: 1895: 1889: 1872: 1860: 1858: 1851: 1837: 1831: 1827: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1805: 1792: 1782:bananabucket 1779: 1771: 1767: 1752: 1723: 1718: 1673: 1669: 1652: 1634: 1624: 1600: 1588: 1577: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1554: 1537: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1501: 1467: 1465: 1442: 1383: 1378: 1349: 1341: 1328: 1327: 1319: 1313: 1301: 1291: 1281: 1272: 1267: 1262: 1241: 1222: 1189: 1182: 1148: 1132: 1131: 1125: 1088: 1076: 1059: 1043: 1036: 1016:bibliomaniac 1013: 1012: 1008: 993: 987: 978: 976: 969: 965: 948: 920: 916: 899: 882: 866: 849: 831: 829: 791:See today's 740:French Texas 727: 712: 706: 690: 684: 667: 646: 634: 623: 616: 608: 585: 573:PeterSymonds 568: 557:Juliancolton 551: 523: 522: 488: 454: 443: 431: 416: 411: 410: 400: 394: 388: 382: 376: 370: 363: 356: 350: 296: 290: 267: 261: 250: 244: 239: 214: 209: 189: 185: 181: 177: 170: 159: 146: 145: 135: 128: 103: 101: 88: 82: 75: 67: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 3374:Weak oppose 2633:Majoreditor 2576:Of course. 2253:my criteria 1444:Malinaccier 1385:Malinaccier 1344:thedemonhog 1090:D. Trebbien 994:Laser brain 736:James Bowie 4084:Ecoleetage 3971:this reply 3935:, and her 3695:Ecoleetage 3662:Ecoleetage 3652:Ecoleetage 3382:an apology 3187:JeanLatore 3098:Meldshal42 2982:Ferrylodge 2788:iridescent 2444:Journalist 2324:Shapiros10 1920:RGTraynor 1707:Disclaimer 1566:discussion 1416:Disclaimer 1064:Keepscases 939:Disclaimer 887:Kakofonous 768:Dispatches 611:obviously. 537:Discussion 502:WP:CANVASS 229:Iridescent 31:successful 4105:Lankiveil 4101:User:Bwrs 4034:SashaNein 4011:Pixelface 3995:Seraphim♥ 3957:Pixelface 3707:And EotW 3358:Acalamari 3323:Gtstricky 3214:Sharkface 3028:America69 2978:an encore 2872:Seraphim♥ 2771:Modernist 2756:Wizardman 2303:contrib's 2269:xenocidic 2107:too far. 2058:EyeSerene 1999:Athaenara 1797:Mattinbgn 1676:twice. -- 1609:Nishkid64 1603:Support. 1228:Christian 1133:ЭLСОВВОLД 1117:cierekim 1047:<: --> 1041:Ruhrfisch 917:Holy moly 459:. It is 446:this page 386:block log 334:talk page 4172:Category 3983:contribs 3975:jbmurray 3884:contribs 3876:jbmurray 3777:contribs 3769:jbmurray 3763:Hi. On 3709:supports 3604:Karanacs 3508:contribs 3500:jbmurray 3436:contribs 3428:jbmurray 3261:contribs 3209:Durandal 3207:wielded 3068:Diligent 3057:Contribs 3052:MacInnis 2974:Ima Hogg 2899:contribs 2835:Jaakobou 2812:contribs 2802:jbmurray 2798:contribs 2675:contribs 2667:jbmurray 2475:Gazimoff 2422:JayHenry 2405:contribs 2397:jbmurray 2219:Amerique 1934:Ima Hogg 1774:Blnguyen 1725:Wisdom89 1601:Ima Hogg 1592:contribs 1582:Casliber 1427:Karanacs 1254:mistakes 1210:contribs 1161:contribs 871:Ealdgyth 854:Dppowell 814:Karanacs 772:Signpost 760:Ima Hogg 514:contribs 506:jbmurray 481:contribs 473:jbmurray 450:this one 354:contribs 344:Karanacs 326:Karanacs 272:Ima Hogg 217:Karanacs 200:contribs 192:jbmurray 155:Karanacs 149:Jbmurray 79:contribs 69:Karanacs 47:Karanacs 4097:Neutral 4079:Neutral 4054:Neutral 4048:Neutral 3941:WT:FICT 3895:against 3815:Georgia 3717:BQZip01 3681:BQZip01 3568:Johnbod 3335:Support 3315:Support 3302:Epbr123 3298:Support 3248:Support 3201:Support 3169:Support 3152:Support 3130:Support 3113:Support 3088:support 3073:Terrier 3041:Support 3024:Support 3015:Sceptre 3011:Support 3001:Spencer 2995:Support 2970:Support 2909:Support 2886:Support 2867:Support 2829:Support 2784:Support 2767:Support 2749:Support 2723:Support 2696:Support 2688:Savidan 2650:Shyamal 2646:Support 2629:Support 2608:Support 2591:Support 2574:Support 2556:Support 2517:Bearian 2513:Support 2492:Support 2469:Support 2452:Support 2440:Budding 2435:Support 2379:Deli nk 2365:Deli nk 2362:Support 2344:Support 2335:My work 2319:Support 2309:Anthøny 2299:Support 2282:Support 2265:Support 2249:Support 2215:Support 2182:BlueQ99 2178:Support 2161:Support 2148:Maralia 2140:Support 2127:PeaceNT 2067:Support 2048:madness 2034:MBisanz 2028:Support 2010:Support 1995:Support 1979:Support 1958:Support 1939:Altiris 1932:as per 1930:Support 1910:Support 1898:BQZip01 1890:Support 1828:Support 1806:Support 1793:Support 1753:Support 1719:Support 1674:Support 1670:Support 1657:Johnbod 1653:Support 1625:Support 1578:Support 1555:Support 1538:Support 1502:Support 1468:BQZip01 1320:Realist 1314:Support 1282:Support 1263:Support 1223:Support 1202:Tombomp 1175:Pringle 1153:Tombomp 1149:Support 1126:Support 1105:June 16 1077:Support 1037:Support 1009:Support 988:Support 966:Support 949:Support 921:exactly 904:MrPrada 900:Support 883:Support 867:Support 850:Support 832:BQZip01 799:Georgia 778:Georgia 707:Support 685:Support 668:Support 651:Cameron 647:Support 635:Support 609:Support 586:Support 569:Support 546:Support 361:deleted 162:FA-Team 4030:Oppose 3925:Oppose 3839:Of War 3796:Of War 3754:Of War 3647:Oppose 3543:Oppose 3526:(talk) 3476:Editor 3407:Editor 3388:Editor 3367:Oppose 3356:Sure. 3252:SWik78 3205:Roland 3135:auburn 3104:(talk) 3049:Trevor 2980:. :-) 2933:WP:100 2916:Frank 2890:SWik78 2800:) and 2730:Editor 2456:Stifle 2286:Risker 2236:Daniel 2197:Rudget 2165:DKNY89 2144:WP:FAC 2071:Kaaveh 1949:Exeunt 1944:Helios 1877:scribe 1854:Enigma 1842:scribe 1815:hoesss 1760:(talk) 1694:Keeper 1691:know. 1559:αἰτίας 1525:ndonic 1489:Naerii 1460:WP:100 1403:Keeper 1286:WP:FAC 1246:Dank55 1100:18:12 1082:random 1000:(talk) 972:Enigma 926:Keeper 719:(talk) 577:(talk) 457:WP:ANI 227:After 173:WP:FAC 92:WT:RFA 4000:Whipp 3910:scent 3903:iride 3832:Gears 3813:Sandy 3789:Gears 3747:Gears 3277:cidic 3138:pilot 3094:? ~~ 2961:drama 2935:! :) 2922:talk 2877:Whipp 2856:LOPEZ 2619:Cobra 2613:Glass 2595:Woody 2578:Ceoil 2110:giggy 2052:needs 1936:. -- 1678:Moni3 1358:edits 1190:scent 1183:iride 1107:(UTC) 1046:: --> 797:Sandy 776:Sandy 639:Bobet 624:scent 617:iride 526:civil 465:these 368:count 306:civil 136:scent 129:iride 16:< 4137:talk 4123:talk 4119:Bwrs 4099:per 4088:talk 4070:talk 4066:Bwrs 4038:talk 4015:talk 3979:talk 3961:talk 3880:talk 3853:east 3820:Talk 3773:talk 3699:talk 3666:talk 3656:talk 3619:this 3608:talk 3572:talk 3520:Tony 3504:talk 3485:wiki 3462:珊瑚15 3432:talk 3416:wiki 3397:wiki 3341:Crea 3306:talk 3283:talk 3275:xeno 3257:talk 3191:talk 3160:talk 3156:Slp1 3143:talk 3121:talk 3032:talk 2986:talk 2895:talk 2859:1115 2820:talk 2816:Cirt 2806:talk 2792:talk 2786:Per 2775:talk 2739:wiki 2706:rium 2703:Cena 2671:talk 2654:talk 2637:talk 2599:talk 2582:talk 2565:talk 2545:Dude 2535:Koji 2521:talk 2497:Neıl 2483:Read 2460:talk 2401:talk 2383:talk 2369:talk 2350:Kuru 2290:talk 2273:talk 2240:talk 2204:logs 2186:talk 2169:talk 2152:talk 2131:talk 2090:east 2075:talk 1970:talk 1682:talk 1661:talk 1643:珊瑚15 1586:talk 1546:talk 1510:talk 1493:Talk 1448:talk 1431:talk 1389:talk 1352:talk 1268:Sher 1250:talk 1206:talk 1157:talk 1140:talk 1112:Dloh 1102:2008 1095:talk 1068:talk 957:talk 908:talk 891:talk 875:Talk 858:talk 818:talk 804:Talk 783:Talk 758:and 713:Tony 676:talk 637:. - 510:talk 477:talk 461:here 425:for 398:rfar 380:logs 348:talk 324:See 308:and 221:talk 196:talk 112:PROD 110:and 104:need 83:have 73:talk 59:talk 3939:at 3857:718 3482:the 3413:the 3394:the 3177:rex 3117:Avi 3115:-- 3092:yet 3045:not 2957:Lra 2853:iaN 2736:the 2561:SJP 2105:way 2094:718 1873:WjB 1838:WjB 1832:his 1703:| 1697:| 1412:| 1406:| 1273:eth 1171:AMW 935:| 929:| 795:. 695:| 691:Tan 468:two 448:or 404:spi 374:AfD 301:FAC 274:to 125:— 108:CSD 96:ANI 4174:: 4139:) 4125:) 4110:. 4090:) 4072:) 4040:) 4017:) 3985:) 3981:• 3963:) 3931:, 3899:– 3886:) 3882:• 3822:) 3779:) 3775:• 3715:— 3701:) 3679:— 3668:) 3610:) 3574:) 3510:) 3506:• 3479:of 3438:) 3434:• 3410:of 3391:of 3347:y! 3308:) 3259:• 3241:- 3193:) 3162:) 3154:-- 3123:) 3034:) 2988:) 2919:| 2897:• 2822:) 2777:) 2733:of 2677:) 2673:• 2656:) 2639:) 2601:) 2584:) 2567:) 2523:) 2462:) 2428:) 2407:) 2403:• 2385:) 2371:) 2292:) 2275:) 2267:. 2255:. 2242:) 2234:. 2188:) 2171:) 2154:) 2133:) 2125:-- 2116::O 2085::) 2077:) 2002:✉ 1972:) 1964:. 1914:no 1896:— 1799:\ 1786:) 1740:/ 1700:76 1684:) 1663:) 1594:) 1548:) 1512:) 1491:- 1466:— 1433:) 1409:76 1355:• 1334:) 1307:@ 1303:dt 1256:) 1252:)( 1233:.И 1212:) 1179:– 1163:) 1070:) 1011:. 959:) 932:76 910:) 893:) 873:- 860:) 830:— 820:) 806:) 785:) 754:, 750:, 746:, 742:, 738:, 698:39 678:) 661:) 613:– 602:) 516:) 512:• 483:) 479:• 471:-- 417:A 392:lu 297:A: 291:3. 268:A: 262:2. 251:A: 245:1. 223:) 202:) 198:• 94:, 61:) 36:. 4135:( 4121:( 4086:( 4068:( 4036:( 4013:( 3977:( 3959:( 3878:( 3855:. 3818:( 3771:( 3719:— 3697:( 3683:— 3664:( 3654:( 3606:( 3570:( 3502:( 3459:女 3456:水 3452:/ 3430:( 3344:m 3304:( 3286:) 3280:( 3263:) 3255:( 3221:C 3217:/ 3189:( 3175:- 3173:T 3158:( 3119:( 3059:) 3055:( 3030:( 2984:( 2901:) 2893:( 2818:( 2809:· 2804:( 2795:· 2790:( 2773:( 2669:( 2652:( 2635:( 2597:( 2580:( 2563:( 2540:† 2519:( 2503:龱 2458:( 2426:t 2424:( 2399:( 2381:( 2367:( 2288:( 2271:( 2238:( 2207:) 2201:( 2184:( 2167:( 2150:( 2129:( 2118:) 2114:( 2092:. 2073:( 1968:( 1900:— 1818:S 1812:S 1778:( 1745:) 1735:T 1730:( 1680:( 1659:( 1640:女 1637:水 1633:/ 1617:) 1613:( 1589:· 1584:( 1570:• 1562:• 1544:( 1528:O 1522:A 1508:( 1470:— 1450:) 1446:( 1429:( 1391:) 1387:( 1324:( 1295:S 1292:Æ 1290:∫ 1248:( 1208:/ 1204:( 1159:/ 1155:( 1098:) 1092:( 1086:« 1080:" 1066:( 1050:° 1026:5 1021:1 955:( 906:( 889:( 856:( 834:— 816:( 802:( 781:( 734:( 674:( 659:C 657:| 655:T 653:( 599:c 597:/ 595:t 592:( 508:( 475:( 406:) 401:· 395:· 389:· 383:· 377:· 371:· 364:· 357:· 351:· 346:( 336:. 219:( 194:( 151:: 76:· 71:( 57:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Karanacs - Knowledge

Index