1547:
there are areas where the process shows its weaknesses. I've been displeased with the way people vote sometimes. A lot of herd mentality. A lot of unsound arguments. And there is a lot of bad writing. And hey, I'm no saint. I've made mistakes in my writing, and I don't vote as much as I should. I think "frustrate" is too strong a word. The weaknesses of the
Knowledge wheels don't make me feel frustrated, they just make me a bit more realistic. It's nice to fantasize about what wikipedia will look like, but I know for a fact that an article may go largely unedited and unlooked at for 2 or 3 years. I'm rambling on here, so let me get to the answer of the question: I don't really get frustrated, but the areas of wikipedia that disappoint me are the same areas that made me fall in love in the first place: open editing, open consensus. The good certainly outweighs the bad. -
1300:. It was one of the first major writing projects I ever undertook on Knowledge. I wrote the initial page almost 2 years ago. Writing that page was what prompted me to stop being just a wikipedia reader (with occasional minor edits) and start being a wikipedia editor, writing full articles. I spent a lot of work on that article. More recently, I completely rewrote
1522:
machine (consensus, talk pages, multiple editors) produce the NPOV results. For example, in science articles, I certainly write from an orthodox POV. In math and science, I won't be unhappy if it turns out the whole project has a significant bias in that direction. I do make efforts to be NPOV. For example by acknowledging constructivism or nonlocal realism.
1193:
found that administrator priveleges are very helpful in my editing, and the more time goes on after I got my admin privileges, the more I venture into administative business. That is to say, it does not make sense to require that only people who do almost exclusively speedy deletions and vandal patrol be given admin privileges.
1333:
didn't need to, lot's of others got in on the reverting. Eventually, I took upon myself to spearhead the process of getting the
Knowledge community process rolling, taking it to RfC and such, organizing votes and polls and I think in the end was a catalyst in ending the war (in our favor, of course). See
1454:
A. I prefer to write my messages to vandals by hand, rather than use templates, but let's say I would leave a message with intent to block on subsequent violation (à la test4) as the third blatant vandalism message left in a short time frame. I would block on the fourth (and leave another message).
1546:
A. Well, first let me preface this by saying I'm completely in love with
Knowledge. I sometimes get drunk at the bar and rant at people how great wikipedia is. I also like to fantasize about what it will look like in, say 10 years. I think it will be awesome indeed. That said, certainly I think
1112:
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one - even on the page you linked to I only see about two dozen deletion vote participations (don't have time to count the exact number, but its around 2 dozen) which hardly qualifies as 'active' for the length of time the candidate has been on
Knowledge. Now
1074:
due to misleading information on nomination - 5 edits out of the last 500 hardly qualifies as 'active' Afd participation in my book. He would make a great admin, but someone who considers 2 dozen votes in two years as 'active' deletion vote participation doesn't have the same sense of judgment as I
1501:
A. I'm not entirely comfortable with speedying valid good faith articles. OK, well that's not an answer. Let's say I was going to speedy delete one. What would I consider the cutoff of notability for, say, a person? If the article doesn't assert notability, and the person's notability doesn't
1332:
and adding a whole bunch of mostly irrelevant stuff about his field of quantum electrochemistry. He would revert the article something like 10 times a day, if I recall. Anyway, I waded into that revert war. I think I took care never to break the 3 revert rule, though I don't recall exactly. I
1521:
A. Is this a question about my editing technique or about what I imagine my administration technique would be? It sounds like you're asking about my editing. So I'll say that I try to edit from as NPOV a standpoint as I can, but no more than I can. I recognize my POV, and I let the
Knowledge
1192:
I believe Lethe gave an excellent answer to that in
Question 1 below. Some people are administrators first and editors second, if that's how they are more productive. Some people are editors first and administrators second, and that should be perfectly acceptable. I am the second kind, and I had
1168:
of course not :) if i were always right, that would be the case. but, sometimes i'm mistaken. if i hand out an adminship, i am taking a risk. perhaps small, but a risk nonetheless. in order to accept that cost, i need the prospect of an off-setting benefit. i see no real benefit of admining
1402:
So in the interests of full disclosure, I show you the examples of me getting in wikifights I've had. What I can remember off the top of my head, anyway. Mostly, when I get into fights or edit wars, it's when I'm defending orthodox scientific views against fringe views. I use the talk page
1278:
A. I don't expect that I would change my habits very much, which means I would continue to revert vandalism as I see it, but more easily. I would continue to occasionally troll recent changes. I would spend some time at AfD and see if they have a use for me. But mostly I would just want to
1502:
appear to be above a household level, then I'll speedy. Eg, "father of 3, loving husband". What about notability at a town level? Eg, "head librarian at the city library"? I'm not sure. I'm sensitive to the fact that AfD is flooded, I think I would ask for help on that one. -
1455:
I would also consider doing it on much longer time frames, but obviously the numbers would have to be higher as well. As for what exactly I consider "blatant vandalism", well you know it when you see it: blanking pages, writing "algebra sucks" in
1403:
extensively, but I'm not afraid to revert you. But mostly, I don't go in for that sort of thing. I like to write math articles. Not too much occasion for controversy there, unless it's about how much coverage noncontructive maths should get. -
1122:
There's no doubt about it. I only vote at AfD sporadically. When articles go through the
Wikiproject Mathematics AfD machine, then I vote, but that doesn't happen much. So let me save you the trouble of counting, it ain't there.
1390:
himself! It was a losing battle though. It's true, I don't have any publications that prove that
Sarfatti does bad things to his critics, just word of mouth. I let that one go. I'm not too interested in that sort of thing
1343:
issue. She was (is?) on a crusade to educate the world that quantum mechanics is wrong. She represents a very small fringe view of the scientific community, which has been sure of quantum mechanics for almost a century.
1348:
was the main defender of the faith in that battle, but I like to think I played a role as well. Um, there are probably 10 different articles across which that battle spread, some of which are since deleted. See
1531:
As far as NPOV goes for adminning... I don't think it has much to do with it, right? Admins don't enforce editorial policy, consensus does. I guess that's why the question was about editing, eh? -
1094:
I am the nominator, and I will say that
Charles Stewart got it right. I wote above "Lethe is active in Articles for deletion", and that is true is you take a look with Interiot's tool, see
1145:
looks like a great editor. doesn't seem to have an particular use for adminship though, per first question. no reason to oppose at all, but also no real purpose for adminship here.
1318:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
948:- Very impressive editor and very thoughtful answers to questions, like what I've seen of his work, and I do not think all admins need to be AfD voters on every case. ++
1256:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
923:
based not on edit count but rather on contributions, answers to questions below, and the faith that other users I trust place in him as shown above above. ⇔
1225:
usage: 85% for major edits and 71% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Knowledge, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
564:
This is an odd support vote. What does it mean? Maybe it means you recognize the name, but don't recall from where. I can say the same thing about the name
932:
1579:
1565:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
936:
1301:
1272:
454:
1417:
questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --
1095:
1012:
72:
83:. He is an all-around nice guy who always solves any disagreements on the talk page. I believe Lethe will make a great administrator.
864:- This Wikipedian knows what "being bold" means, and consistently steers clear of "being reckless". Wonderful person to work with. --
76:
1154:
Surely if you trust the user with admin tools, they should be granted it. Whether they will use it or not is none of our business.
1279:
continue being an editor, and use admin responsibilities only should the need arise, rather than looking for places to use them. -
928:
32:
17:
1243:
80:
269:
71:) has been contributing to Knowledge since October 2003, and has 3899 edits. Lethe created and is an active contributor at
370:
1239:
1011:
as a very knowledgeable editor, and one who won't abuse the tools. I've seen his helpful edits all over the place at the
799:
1471:
What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of
924:
450:
198:
68:
1334:
1264:
1293:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1198:
1103:
957:
612:
432:
282:
123:
88:
1268:
1085:
If you page back a bit further, you'll see more. On 22 Sep 2005 he participated in 10 different AfDs. --- ---
968:, mostly to get to be the 50th vote, but also because of the user's history of intelligent, reasoned edits. :)
386:
169:
1297:
796:
749:
231:
1098:. I did not say "Lethe lives and breathes deletion debates", which would not be a healthy attitude anyway.
1429:
1340:
1000:
476:
468:. Took a good look and found nothing in his edit history to indicate he wouldn't be a responsible admin.--
445:
265:
248:
1376:
1056:
981:
815:
534:
1350:
1304:. That took me all day. It still needs a lot of work, but it provides a recent example of my work. -
1194:
1099:
725:
608:
469:
180:
119:
84:
1421:
1382:
Just a couple of days ago, I got into a very short revert war (just one or two reversions) over at
1365:
1037:
1019:
811:
733:
479:
382:
302:
297:
294:
166:
163:
160:
1159:
1046:
1024:
1016:
742:
681:
581:
549:
415:
227:
1434:
1229:
1202:
1177:
1163:
1149:
1117:
1107:
1089:
1059:
1048:
1027:
1003:
988:
960:
940:
915:
903:
892:
880:
868:
856:
835:
819:
802:
787:
775:
763:
728:
716:
704:
684:
672:
660:
644:
636:
616:
591:
572:
559:
537:
522:
508:
496:
484:
460:
435:
419:
402:
390:
373:
353:
341:
329:
305:
285:
273:
252:
235:
218:
202:
183:
172:
151:
139:
127:
92:
381:. What I've seen from him in my short time here leaves me with nothing but good impression. --
1426:
1418:
1329:
1325:
997:
900:
699:
657:
366:
261:
244:
969:
865:
854:
641:
531:
505:
1324:
Quantum electrochemistry. there was an anonymous editor (presumably Zurab Urushadze from
1174:
1146:
912:
493:
428:
195:
62:
1548:
1532:
1515:
1503:
1479:
1460:
1444:
1404:
1305:
1280:
1124:
974:
597:
569:
518:
317:
102:
1113:
that I know this was deliberate rather than a mistake, my vote is no longer reluctant
1573:
1495:
1491:
1472:
1383:
1361:
1155:
1042:
953:
772:
578:
546:
411:
136:
1328:) once upon a time who insisted on listing his advisor next to Dirac in the article
1456:
1226:
1114:
1076:
889:
784:
653:
633:
565:
362:
148:
632:
per all of above, pettiness of opposition, and excellent choice of username :) .
1448:
1387:
1372:
1321:
A. Sure I have. Would you like to see examples? Let's see. I'll make a list.
851:
713:
604:
1368:
articles. Reddi's been in arbitration for this sort of thing twice since then.
1263:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1357:
1345:
1235:
877:
831:
669:
350:
338:
191:
58:
47:
1170:
756:
514:
211:
584:
552:
1478:
A. If the user is within the letter of the law, I will not do anything. -
1379:. It was pretty stupid, but I remember getting a bit uppity at the time.
949:
839:
1494:(unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an
1559:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1169:
someone who gives no real affirmative reason. can't help it, it's
1353:
if you have an urge to wade through oceans of circular arguments.
1490:
In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under
603:
For people who don't know what these two are talking about, see
349:
our maths experts, on whom I rely to make numbers make sense.
99:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
577:
Lol. Have you forgotten the meaning of your own username?
28:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
427:. No reason to expect any misuse of the extra buttons.
1459:, replacing pictures with dicks, that sort of thing. -
1543:
What are your greatest frustrations with Knowledge?
443:Good contributor, no evidence of problem behavior.
1518:to a controversial article that you are editing?
54:Final (54/1/1) ended 08:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
1360:about adding anti-relativity propaganda to the
876:. I'm around less, but my vote still counts.--
850:. Seems like he will use the tools wisely. --
8:
410:. Seen this user around, a good impression.
147:. Always polite. Will make a great admin.
1302:locally convex topological vector space
7:
1371:I got into a childish argument with
73:Knowledge:Reference desk/Mathematics
24:
1580:Successful requests for adminship
795:, unlikely to abuse admin tools.
337:, everything looks good to me. -
77:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1335:Talk:Quantum mechanics/Archive2
504:, clearly an excellent editor.
81:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1447:}}, and when would you use {{
1020:
1009:Just-under-the-buzzer-Support
600:23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
480:
398:- solid, diplomatic. --- ---
298:
1551:20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1535:20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1506:20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1482:20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1463:20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1435:12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1407:07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1308:07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1283:07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1273:administrators' reading list
1244:Interiot's edit history tool
1230:07:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1203:17:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
1178:23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
1164:22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1150:22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1127:11:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
1118:11:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
1108:21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1090:19:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1060:08:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
1049:07:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
1028:07:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
1004:02:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
989:23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
961:23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
941:07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
916:03:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
904:02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
893:02:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
881:18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
869:17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
857:02:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
820:01:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
803:21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
788:15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
776:10:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
764:14:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
729:13:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
717:03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
705:19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
685:17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
673:14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
661:13:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
645:02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
637:00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
617:02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
592:23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
573:23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
560:22:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
538:22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
523:17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
509:05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
497:03:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
485:01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
470:
461:00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
436:23:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
420:22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
403:19:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
391:19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
374:17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
354:16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
342:14:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
330:14:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
306:14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
286:13:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
274:13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
253:11:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
236:10:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
219:10:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
203:10:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
184:10:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
173:09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
152:08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
140:06:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
135:. Great guy to have around.
128:06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
105:07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
93:06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1560:
1356:I was in a revert war with
1253:Questions for the candidate
911:Exemplary RFA candidate. --
596:Oh, duh! I guess I did. -
1596:
1296:A. My favorite article is
1267:, and read the page about
1265:Category:Knowledge backlog
1240:Interiot's edit count tool
692:has sufficient experience
1562:Please do not modify it.
75:, and is also active at
1413:The following are some
1298:almost complex manifold
38:Please do not modify it
1234:See information about
642:King of All the Franks
243:. From experience. --
1443:When would you use {{
33:request for adminship
1514:How would you apply
1035:No problems here. --
996:most definitely. —
545:, but I forgot why.
283:William M. Connolley
1366:Robert S. Shankland
1339:Then there was the
1173:to think that way.
1013:math reference desk
797:Christopher Parham
1341:Caroline Thompson
1330:quantum mechanics
842:
818:
810:, a good editor.
521:
458:
446:Crotalus horridus
363:Fredrik Johansson
201:
1587:
1564:
1351:Talk:EPR paradox
1045:
1040:
1022:
987:
984:
844:
834:
827:, good editor.
814:
761:
754:
747:
740:
589:
557:
517:
482:
474:
448:
325:
320:
313:, I like him. -
300:
216:
194:
40:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1570:
1569:
1195:Oleg Alexandrov
1100:Oleg Alexandrov
1087:Charles Stewart
1038:
1036:
982:
979:
828:
757:
750:
743:
734:
703:
695:
680:, of course. -
609:Oleg Alexandrov
586:
554:
400:Charles Stewart
323:
316:
281:- definitely -
212:
120:Oleg Alexandrov
85:Oleg Alexandrov
51:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1593:
1591:
1583:
1582:
1572:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1380:
1369:
1354:
1337:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1269:administrators
1255:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1238:'s edits with
1232:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1080:
1079:
1063:
1062:
1051:
1030:
1006:
991:
963:
943:
918:
906:
895:
883:
871:
859:
845:
822:
805:
790:
778:
766:
731:
719:
707:
697:
693:
687:
675:
663:
647:
639:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
540:
525:
511:
499:
487:
463:
459:
438:
433:picture popups
422:
405:
393:
383:Meni Rosenfeld
376:
356:
344:
332:
308:
288:
276:
255:
238:
221:
205:
186:
175:
154:
142:
130:
107:
106:
50:
45:
44:
43:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1592:
1581:
1578:
1577:
1575:
1566:
1563:
1557:
1556:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1520:
1519:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1505:
1500:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1452:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1389:
1385:
1384:Jack Sarfatti
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1362:Dayton Miller
1359:
1355:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1338:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1322:
1320:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1282:
1277:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1126:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1057:Joanofanarchy
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
999:
998:Laura Scudder
995:
992:
990:
985:
978:
977:
973:
972:
967:
966:Moral support
964:
962:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
919:
917:
914:
910:
907:
905:
902:
899:
896:
894:
891:
887:
884:
882:
879:
875:
872:
870:
867:
863:
860:
858:
855:
853:
849:
846:
843:
841:
837:
833:
826:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
804:
801:
798:
794:
791:
789:
786:
782:
779:
777:
774:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
755:
753:
748:
746:
741:
739:
738:
732:
730:
727:
723:
720:
718:
715:
712:absolutely --
711:
708:
706:
702:
701:
691:
688:
686:
683:
682:Mailer Diablo
679:
676:
674:
671:
667:
664:
662:
659:
655:
651:
648:
646:
643:
640:
638:
635:
631:
628:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
599:
595:
594:
593:
590:
583:
580:
576:
575:
574:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
558:
551:
548:
544:
541:
539:
536:
533:
529:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
510:
507:
503:
500:
498:
495:
491:
488:
486:
483:
478:
475:
473:
467:
464:
462:
456:
452:
447:
444:
442:
439:
437:
434:
430:
426:
423:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
404:
401:
397:
394:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
368:
364:
361:, of course.
360:
357:
355:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
336:
333:
331:
327:
322:
321:
319:
312:
309:
307:
304:
301:
296:
292:
289:
287:
284:
280:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
209:
206:
204:
200:
197:
193:
190:
187:
185:
182:
179:
176:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
158:
155:
153:
150:
146:
143:
141:
138:
134:
131:
129:
125:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
104:
100:
97:
96:
95:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
67:
64:
60:
56:
55:
49:
46:
42:
39:
34:
31:
26:
25:
19:
1561:
1558:
1540:
1511:
1487:
1468:
1457:vector space
1440:
1430:
1422:
1414:
1412:
1315:
1290:
1260:
1252:
1251:
1223:Edit summary
1222:
1216:
1215:
1139:
1138:
1086:
1071:
1065:
1064:
1053:
1032:
1008:
993:
975:
970:
965:
945:
920:
908:
901:Expensivehat
897:
885:
873:
861:
847:
829:
824:
807:
792:
780:
768:
758:
751:
744:
736:
735:
721:
709:
698:
689:
677:
665:
649:
629:
568:, I think. -
542:
527:
501:
489:
471:
465:
440:
424:
407:
399:
395:
378:
358:
346:
334:
326:
315:
314:
310:
290:
278:
262:NaconKantari
257:
245:Jitse Niesen
240:
223:
213:
210:seems good.
207:
188:
177:
156:
144:
132:
115:
109:
108:
98:
65:
57:
53:
52:
37:
29:
27:
1025:ruvianLlama
971:Matt Yeager
866:HappyCamper
532:Paul August
506:Chick Bowen
226:, why not?
101:I accept. -
913:Madchester
836:2006-01-29
726:Bling-chav
515:Charles P.
494:Ugur Basak
295:Kirill Lok
232:fuddle me!
228:fuddlemark
181:Astrotrain
30:successful
1498:instead?
1377:Talk:XNOR
1574:Category
1415:optional
1386:against
1375:over at
1271:and the
1217:Comments
1156:enochlau
812:Ashibaka
773:Mushroom
455:CONTRIBS
412:enochlau
371:contribs
318:Phædriel
137:Dmharvey
69:contribs
1431:phoenix
1391:anyway.
1326:Georgia
1227:Mathbot
1140:Neutral
1115:Cynical
1077:Cynical
1054:Support
1043:iva1979
1033:Support
994:Support
946:Support
925:| | ⊕ ⊥
921:Support
909:Support
898:Support
886:Support
874:Support
862:Support
848:Support
825:Support
808:Support
793:Support
785:Bhadani
781:Support
769:Support
745:γκυκλοπ
722:Support
710:Support
690:Support
678:Support
666:Support
654:Pschemp
650:Support
634:Ncsaint
630:Support
566:Radiant
543:Support
528:Support
502:Support
490:Support
466:Support
441:Support
425:Support
408:Support
396:Support
379:Support
359:Support
347:Support
335:Support
311:Support
291:Support
279:support
258:Support
241:Support
224:Support
208:Support
189:Support
178:Support
157:Support
149:Fropuff
145:Support
133:Support
116:Support
110:Support
1492:CSD A7
1473:WP:3RR
1373:StuRat
1171:my job
1072:Oppose
1066:Oppose
852:DS1953
800:(talk)
752:αίδεια
714:rogerd
582:adiant
550:adiant
519:(Mirv)
472:Dakota
1549:lethe
1533:lethe
1504:lethe
1480:lethe
1461:lethe
1445:test4
1405:lethe
1388:Jimbo
1358:Reddi
1346:CSTAR
1306:lethe
1281:lethe
1236:Lethe
1175:Derex
1147:Derex
1125:lethe
983:Talk?
878:CSTAR
838:01:57
832:Quarl
670:linas
598:lethe
588:|<
587:: -->
570:lethe
556:|<
555:: -->
429:Zocky
351:Xoloz
339:Bobet
214:Grue
192:Proto
170:e Ong
103:lethe
59:Lethe
48:Lethe
16:<
1516:NPOV
1451:}}?
1364:and
1199:talk
1160:talk
1104:talk
1096:here
1015:. --
890:Joke
816:tock
783:: --
700:talk
658:Talk
613:talk
605:here
451:TALK
416:talk
387:talk
367:talk
249:talk
124:talk
89:talk
79:and
63:talk
1496:AFD
1475:.)
1427:ath
1242:or
1075:do
950:Lar
303:hin
293:. —
268:)|(
161:Ter
118:.
1576::
1541:8.
1512:7.
1488:6.
1469:5.
1449:bv
1441:4.
1316:3.
1291:2.
1275:.
1261:1.
1201:)
1162:)
1106:)
952::
939:)
771:.
724:--
668:.
656:|
652:.
615:)
607:.
530:—
492:--
453:•
431:|
418:)
389:)
369:-
365:-
328:-
272:)
270:郵便
260:--
251:)
234:)
167:nc
159:--
126:)
91:)
35:.
1423:e
1419:D
1246:.
1197:(
1158:(
1123:-
1102:(
1039:S
1021:e
1017:P
1001:☎
986:)
980:(
976:♫
958:c
956:/
954:t
937:e
935:-
933:c
931:-
929:t
927:(
888:–
840:Z
830:—
759:*
737:ε
696:/
694:└
611:(
585:_
579:R
553:_
547:R
535:☎
513:—
481:ε
477:~
457:)
449:(
414:(
385:(
324:♥
299:s
266:話
264:(
247:(
230:(
199:c
196:t
164:e
122:(
87:(
66:·
61:(
41:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.