1379:--Viewing contribution data for user RyanGerbil10 (over the 2240 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 551 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 19, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 16, December, 2004 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.59% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 18.48 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 497 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 2240 edits shown on this page and last 11 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 2.59% (58) Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 11.47% (257) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 29.06% (651) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 82.86% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 11 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 672 | Average edits per page: 3.33 | Edits on top: 5.09% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 37.01% (829 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 36.96% (828 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.77% (174 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 15.04% (337 edit(s)) Edits by Knowledge namespace: Article: 54.02% (1210) | Article talk: 2.41% (54) User: 8.35% (187) | User talk: 7.81% (175) Knowledge: 25.63% (574) | Knowledge talk: 0.31% (7) Image: 0.71% (16) Template: 0.36% (8) Category: 0% (0) Portal: 0.4% (9) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0)
1436:
after them with dedication. To me, the symbol of an admin is indeed a mop, not a broadsword. One of the things I would like to do most with my admin powers is to stop, or more realistically, slow, the crufting of video game articles. Almost 90% of my reverts are reverting the insertion of cruft into video game articles. As a non-admin, I can do little, even to repeat offenders, except add warning templates and threaten people that I'll bring an admin in to block them. Although I seldom encounter terrible cruft editors (the majority of cruft comes from one-time, almost drive-by like anon edits), the recurring editors are a mess to clean up after and admin tools would be a welcome respite.
79:) – Hello, everyone. I've been at Knowledge for over 18 months now, and I've finally built up a substantial amount of edits. As is apparent from my edit history, I was inactive for most of 2005 and the first two months of 2006, due to an extremely demanding course schedule, combined with athletic practices. Although I was not an active editor during that time, I was an active reader, and participant in FAC. I continued to follow policy developments during my inactive period, albeit in a passive manner. However, I am pleased to say I do not foresee my schedule ever becoming so busy again, and I believe now is the time to request my adminship.
1562:
Seriously, though, I would have to quote "Knowledge:What adminship is not" for this answer. "Every editor, from the newest registered account to the most experienced bureaucrat, has exactly the same standing here on
Knowledge." Because of that, if six editors truely thought my adminship needed to be reexamined by the Knowledge community, I would march back to RfA the next time I logged on. For reference, I had heard of this category, but had not looked into it too deeply.
1446:
them. In addition to my editing, I also spend a great deal of time reading
Knowledge, and frequently encounter articles with open AfDs. By the time I find them, a consensus has usually been clearly reached, so I don't often vote, but when scanning the AfD page I often see many other pages with similarly decisive AfDs that can remain open for days.
697:. Come on people lets get to the important stuff, whether the user can be trusted. Lets see, long time user, lots of great contributions, no significant screw ups, not even any people complaining significantly. It's clear by his editing track record that he can be trusted, and lacking any evidence that he cannot, he should be promoted. -
1533:? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process
1456:
policy discussion on
Knowledge Talk pages, I find my ability to participate in them to be limited. As an admin, my first duty would be to encourage calm and rational discussion of the matter at hand, and then, after consideration, take any actions I deem necessary to resolve the conflict farily but firmly.
1505:
article, but it was hardly intense. There were a few heated talk page messages, but little more. Other users haven't really stressed me at all in the past. I work in retail, and
Knowledge users are sorely mistaken if they think they have annoyed me in the past. Even the most stressful of my Knowledge
1197:
I agree with that (but not the oppose) I would add any article you edit to your watchlist so you get to know about any contentious or very active ones. I have just pruned my list from 240 odd to 127 (removing all the pointlessly short ones i will never work on or the deleted ones etc.) and of those I
1435:
I do not see myself as an "in the limelight" admin. I would like to work mainly behind the scenes, straigtening up the things that maybe aren't of the highest priority or greatest visibility, but which still need doing. I won't be waging high war with the trolls and vandals, although I will clean up
1166:
Sorry for the interruption. I did a bit of quick counting on my watchlist, and found that of the 67 articles on my watchlist, 20 have no talk pages, and and 32 have talk pages with less than 5 posts on them. It's not that I avoid them, it's just that the areas where I work are not heavily discussed.
82:
I've wished to become an administrator for some time now, so that I may help the various janitorial tasks which keep
Knowledge running, and running well. I feel I've made the necessary demonstrations of kindness, dedication, patience, and policy knowledge the position requires in its daily duties. I
1455:
I would also like to take a more active role in dispute resolution, and I feel that with admin authority, I would be able to take a more active role in fairly resolving conflicts. As a normal editor, I have little to contribute to many disputes. I can read about and understand them, but other than
1445:
I would like to clear our backlogs, especially in terms of article deletions at WP:CSD. Although I have not personally participated in many AfDs, I have watched them, sometimes with amusement, for quite a while, and know how they work. Some remain open far too long, and I would quite like to close
1040:
While we all appreciate your enthusiasm at FAC Sandy, RyanGerbil10 has been participating at FAC for significantly longer than you have, so with all due respect, voting oppose based on lack of experience and using that as your backing is a little odd. Please consider the important issues. After a
1571:
When it comes to rouge admins, I might add myself to the category in time. Seeing the names of the members of the category, it seems that these are people who have earned a reputation for flamboyant or extremely visible admin actions. As I have no desire, at least now, to become such an admin, I
1561:
I do agree with the
Administrators available for recall category, and if confirmed, I would place myself there. Being an admin isn't like being granted diplomatic immunity, you can still do wrong even with the mop. For example, I could hit one of my cats with a mop. No one benefits from that.
1187:
Article talk page experience is essential for being an admin, in my opinion. This is where the discussions, debates, and conflicts occur that are central to our mission here... creating an encyclopedia. Perhaps add some articles to your watchlist that are a little more active, participate in
1278:- I won't oppose but I can't support either. I'm wondering why he wants to take a 'more active role,' as an admin, in tasks/discussions in which he hasn't yet participated. In a few months, with more dialogue in the talk spaces, he will gain more and broader support including mine.
1103:
Seems quite passive for an admin candidate, real world activities notwithstanding. I would like to see more interaction with other editors and intervention beyond reverting vandals in the main article space before turning to support. A little more participation is all it takes.
1256:. Very good article contributor (the stats are near perfect), but I don't see much motivation to be an admin or demonstration of policy knowledge or maintanence tasks. The answer to the questions don't seem to give me much confidence in that respect either.
1480:
the equivalent of an
English Good Article. The tranlsation was difficult, and took me the better part of nine days, but I slogged through. I also have worked hard on keeping cruft out of articles related to the Pikmin series of video games, among other
1135:, he has a substantial number of Knowledge space edits to show interaction with the community. However, his answer to question one seems to contradict itself. How can you take a more active role in dispute resolution with a mop, not a broadsword? —
83:
was going to wait longer to request adminship, but I've listened to debates that the number of admins is not keeping up with the number of new articles and users. Because of this, I decided to Be Bold and jump into the waters a bit early.
1157:. Only 54 main talk edits shows lack of direct article interaction. Maybe now that the course load isn't so heavy, the nominee can get a little more involved and reapply in a few months. Will definitely consider supporting then.
1401:
Username RyanGerbil10 Total edits 2235 Distinct pages edited 672 Average edits/page 3.326 First edit 01:28, 16 December 2004 (main) 1210 Talk 54 User 187 User talk 175 Image 16 Template 8 Knowledge 569 Knowledge talk 7 Portal 9
1310:: Excellent period and editcount, but you're almost there. I suggest you aim for more namespace contribs, and eventually you'll get them all in a matter of time. So good luck on this until the next try. --Slgr
1059:
You seem like a decent person who would make a good admin, but I feel you need to be able to tell us not about the watching, but about the doing - more hands on experience and interaction and you'll be fine.
469:
I feel the amount of edits is little compared to other RFA nominees but I have seen Ryan on other talk pages and he was civil and polite. His answers to the questions are excellent and he is ready. -
1016:
It's not considered unusual to make a vote at FAC that says while something needs to be improved, the objector is unsure of how to best improve it. I, and others, have made such votes in the past,
363:
his answer to Q1 mentions that he wants to deal with repeat offenders of cruft insertion, resolve disputes, and clear backlogs in AfD and CfD. I think that's a perfectly satisfactory answer.
1529:? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of
419:. I've seen him around on FAC, and he seems to be an intelligent and levelheaded guy with a solid grasp on the fundamentals of what we do here. Sure to make good use of the tools. --
889:
Withdrawing my opposition per careful examination of your history and per Taxman. Will not be supporting as you significantly fail my amorphous editcountitis standards. Good luck. -
1491:
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?
1007:"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored."
1198:
regularly 'monitor' maybe 40. The point is that expanding your presence and influence base can help to build respect for you in community - especially important for an admin. --
229:
456:
per Seivad, Fabricationary (who, I think, states quite well what ought to be the calculus over which candidates for adminship are adjudged), and Mailer Diablo, to name three.
1188:
concensus building, resolve conflicts with users you don't agree with. These are all experiences that, if accumulated, will lead me to vote support on the next go-around.
992:
just makes it harder for the admin closing the vote to figure things out. I have seen excellent contributions from you, and will support when you have more experience.
1410:
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:
210:- nom statement and questions look good as do edits. Adminship is not about being on stage solo, it's about being part of a choir, a team. There is no I in we. --
551:
1603:
587:'No Big Deal'. I see no reason to beleive that the user would abuse the tools, nor do I see reason that the user doesen't grasp policy. Good luck. --
1426:
845:
1526:
237:
per nom. Nothing disagreeable here, and has easily enough experience (2000+ edits over 18 months is hardly insubstantial) to know what's what.
678:
976:
1585:
1288:
76:
510:
178:
1327:
938:
per
Crzrussian. You are still unexperienced but I will gladly support you if you request adminship again in a few more months. --
33:
17:
245:
667:
1572:
wouldn't add myself, although I am not opposed to the category's existence nor my eventual inclusion or non-inclusion in it.
1004:
857:
811:
514:
290:
1506:
situations is peaceful compared to the
Saturday rush in the shoe department. I don't foresee any problems in the future.
1388:
900:
879:
1395:
1418:
1128:
1546:
1466:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1171:
1024:
826:
675:
394:
112:
87:
1233:
1206:
273:
1422:
1106:
972:
891:
572:
1473:
1286:
1549:
1374:
1362:
1349:
1332:
1302:
1290:
1270:
1258:
1238:
1220:
1211:
1192:
1182:
1179:
1161:
1149:
1119:
1088:
1076:
1064:
1045:
1035:
1032:
1011:
996:
980:
960:
930:
904:
883:
801:
781:
766:
754:
735:
719:
701:
689:
655:
643:
631:
619:
598:
579:
561:
542:
530:
518:
483:
473:
460:
448:
436:
423:
411:
397:
379:
367:
355:
339:
315:
298:
278:
253:
214:
202:
182:
157:
146:
123:
120:
98:
95:
70:
539:
1530:
842:
the entire nom statement is about why he didn't do edits and doesnt mention why he wants to be an admin
506:
1584:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1279:
479:
Withdraw my support vote after I read all the oppose comments and I agree more edits would be useful. -
261:
impressive good quality edits to a wide range of articles. But this on your userpage swayed it for me
1323:
946:
896:
875:
797:
750:
672:
664:
547:
This editor is a suspected sock who has done nothing but make trouble and vote in RfAs and AfDs. See
388:
336:
1534:
375:, more sysops willing to work behind the scenes also mean less backlogs and increased efficiency. -
1311:
969:
920:
686:
681:
627:
per all above, per answers to questions, and because there's nothing wrong with a passive admin. --
608:
495:
480:
470:
433:
364:
327:
295:
287:
194:
165:
User seems to be a good canidate, with good intentions, and over 2000 edits, which is fine by me.--
1498:
763:
406:
1525:(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of
1345:
927:
732:
628:
617:
376:
222:
939:
59:
1384:
1176:
1168:
1144:
1029:
1021:
1008:
993:
853:
714:
640:
527:
409:
174:
170:
136:
117:
109:
92:
84:
66:
1085:
558:
502:
492:
1319:
1226:
1217:
1199:
1189:
1158:
953:
870:
790:
778:
743:
352:
332:
324:
307:
266:
199:
191:
1041:
certain point volume of edits does not matter in determining if a user can be trusted. -
1502:
238:
1340:. I think a little extra experience would enable others to evaluate the candidate. --
1597:
1542:
1341:
1061:
917:
728:
652:
613:
589:
457:
1537:
I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++
1137:
849:
709:
166:
286:- seen him about the place being nice, civil, kind and useful. Give him the mop! —
1299:
1042:
698:
576:
555:
445:
348:
211:
154:
1417:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1578:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1073:
775:
420:
432:- I think he would be a level-headed admin who wouldn't abuse the mop :).
387:, per Mailer diablo and Adambiswanger1. Behind-the-scenes admins are good.
1538:
1514:
762:
Dedicated, friendly and good faith editor... should make a good admin. --
263:
until I realized that specializing in something in Knowledge is pointless
1472:
My favorite contribution to Knowledge is one of my German translations,
1588:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1167:
I hope this clairfies a few things, and thank you all for voting,
1133:
At least 350 combined talk, user talk, and Knowledge talk edits
106:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1003:
Here's an additional example of more experience needed:
1017:
575:, looks like a civil editor who won't abuse the tools.
548:
989:
554:. He's recently voted in three other RfA's as well.--
444:- Good understanding of what it means to be an admin.
405:
I good interactions with him, won't abuse the tools
1005:
objections to FA candidates should be "actionable".
1131:, I'm giving a neutral because although he failed
1501:over inclusion of certain information in the
868:per underexperience and weak answer to Q1. -
8:
101:(Statement amended 18:53 UTC 19 July 2006)
1527:Category:Administrators_open_to_recall
988:per lack of experience. RyanGerbil,
7:
1298:- a few more talks will be better.--
1225:Umm Good point, well made.. :D --
24:
1604:Successful requests for adminship
1394:RyanGerbil10's edit count using
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
538:, 18 months seems long enough.
163:Edit conflict to First Support!
1:
1127:- going a little bit against
840:Oppose with current statement
1427:administrators' reading list
968:per Crzrussian and Caf3623.
1406:Questions for the candidate
1387:'s edit summary usage with
829:) 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
651:another multilingual user.
1620:
1421:, and read the page about
1419:Category:Knowledge backlog
774:, does lots of good work.
639:per above. Good luck! :-)
1550:13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1375:19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1350:12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1333:21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1303:01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
1291:23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1271:21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1239:09:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
1221:23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1216:But... I did not oppose.
1212:20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1193:19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1183:18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1162:16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1150:12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1120:06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1089:13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1077:02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1072:per lack of experience.--
1065:22:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1046:04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
1036:17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
1012:14:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
997:22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
981:21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
961:13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
931:10:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
905:21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
884:03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
802:20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
782:13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
767:01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
755:00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
736:17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
720:12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
702:04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
690:04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
663:. Excellent per above. --
656:12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
644:22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
632:19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
620:16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
599:08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
580:05:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
562:05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
543:04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
531:03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
519:02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
484:00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
474:00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
461:22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
449:22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
437:21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
424:19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
412:18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
398:18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
380:15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
368:13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
356:11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
340:11:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
316:10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
299:10:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
279:08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
254:06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
230:06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
215:04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
203:03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
183:03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
158:03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
147:03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
124:03:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
99:02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1581:Please do not modify it.
916:Per Crzrussian above. --
1513:Optional question from
1474:Friedrichstadt (Berlin)
265:. Exactly my ethos. --
225:This Fire Burns Always
39:Please do not modify it
1497:I had a conflict with
727:Yay for anti-vandals!
1531:Category:Rouge admins
1478:Lesenswerter Artikel,
990:this kind of response
848:comment was added by
809:meets new standards.
34:request for adminship
1476:, which is a German
606:A dedicated user. --
108:I do indeed accept.
1020:. Hope that helps,
789:per all above. --
1331:
1237:
1210:
1141:
1084:per the above. --
903:
882:
861:
391:
277:
1611:
1583:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1317:
1314:
1284:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1231:
1229:
1204:
1202:
1174:
1148:
1139:
1118:
1116:
1111:
1027:
958:
951:
944:
925:
895:
874:
843:
824:
822:
821:
818:
815:
795:
748:
717:
712:
684:
670:
616:
611:
595:
592:
500:
389:
330:
313:
310:
293:
271:
269:
251:
227:
197:
144:
139:
115:
90:
41:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1586:this nomination
1579:
1403:
1396:Interiot's tool
1380:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1312:
1280:
1265:
1262:
1259:
1227:
1200:
1172:
1136:
1112:
1109:(aeropagitica)
1107:
1105:
1025:
954:
947:
940:
921:
844:—The preceding
819:
816:
813:
812:
810:
791:
744:
715:
710:
682:
668:
609:
607:
597:
593:
590:
496:
328:
311:
308:
291:
267:
250:
242:
223:
195:
140:
137:
113:
88:
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1617:
1615:
1607:
1606:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1553:
1552:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1503:Captain Olimar
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1423:administrators
1408:
1407:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1392:
1389:mathbot's tool
1378:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1335:
1305:
1293:
1282:Baseball,Baby!
1273:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1152:
1122:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1091:
1079:
1067:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1038:
983:
963:
933:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
866:Oppose for now
836:
835:
831:
830:
804:
784:
769:
757:
738:
722:
704:
692:
658:
646:
634:
622:
601:
588:
582:
566:
565:
564:
540:Reggae Sanderz
533:
521:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
451:
439:
434:Fabricationary
426:
414:
400:
382:
370:
365:AdamBiswanger1
358:
342:
318:
301:
281:
256:
244:
232:
217:
205:
185:
160:
149:
130:
129:
126:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1616:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1599:
1589:
1587:
1582:
1576:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1516:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1492:
1490:
1487:
1486:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1465:
1462:
1461:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1405:
1404:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1285:
1283:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1255:
1252:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1180:(Drop on in!)
1178:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1115:
1110:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1055:
1047:
1044:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1033:(Drop on in!)
1031:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
991:
987:
984:
982:
978:
974:
971:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
952:
950:
945:
943:
937:
934:
932:
929:
926:
924:
919:
915:
912:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
888:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
867:
863:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
841:
838:
837:
833:
832:
828:
823:
808:
805:
803:
800:
799:
796:
794:
788:
785:
783:
780:
777:
773:
770:
768:
765:
761:
758:
756:
753:
752:
749:
747:
742:
739:
737:
734:
730:
726:
723:
721:
718:
713:
708:
705:
703:
700:
696:
693:
691:
688:
685:
680:
677:
674:
671:
666:
662:
659:
657:
654:
650:
647:
645:
642:
638:
635:
633:
630:
626:
623:
621:
618:
615:
612:
605:
602:
600:
596:
586:
583:
581:
578:
574:
570:
567:
563:
560:
557:
553:
549:
546:
545:
544:
541:
537:
534:
532:
529:
525:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:
499:
494:
491:
485:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
452:
450:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
431:
427:
425:
422:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
404:
401:
399:
396:
392:
386:
383:
381:
378:
377:Mailer Diablo
374:
371:
369:
366:
362:
359:
357:
354:
351:and others.
350:
346:
343:
341:
338:
334:
331:
326:
322:
319:
317:
314:
305:
302:
300:
297:
294:
289:
285:
282:
280:
275:
270:
264:
260:
257:
255:
249:
248:
240:
236:
233:
231:
228:
226:
221:
218:
216:
213:
209:
206:
204:
201:
198:
193:
189:
186:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
159:
156:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
135:
132:
131:
127:
125:
122:
121:(Drop on in!)
119:
116:
111:
107:
104:
103:
102:
100:
97:
96:(Drop on in!)
94:
91:
86:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
64:
63:
61:
58:Ended 03:10,
56:
55:Final(38/8/8)
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1580:
1577:
1558:
1522:
1512:
1511:
1499:User:Xubelox
1494:
1488:
1477:
1469:
1463:
1432:
1414:
1409:
1385:RyanGerbil10
1361:
1359:
1337:
1307:
1295:
1281:
1275:
1257:
1253:
1154:
1132:
1129:my standards
1124:
1113:
1108:
1100:
1081:
1069:
1056:
1018:such as here
985:
965:
955:
948:
941:
935:
922:
913:
892:CrazyRussian
890:
871:CrazyRussian
869:
865:
864:
839:
827:penguin logs
806:
798:
792:
786:
771:
759:
751:
745:
740:
724:
706:
694:
660:
648:
636:
624:
603:
584:
573:my standards
568:
535:
528:Mostly Rainy
523:
497:
466:
465:
454:Weak support
453:
441:
429:
416:
402:
384:
372:
360:
344:
320:
303:
283:
262:
258:
246:
234:
224:
219:
207:
187:
162:
151:
141:
133:
105:
81:
73:
67:RyanGerbil10
65:
57:
54:
53:
49:RyanGerbil10
48:
38:
30:
28:
1086:HResearcher
731:talk to me
552:sock report
167:The ikiroid
1360:All edits.
1234:tmorton166
1232:(formerly
1218:Themindset
1207:tmorton166
1205:(formerly
1190:Themindset
1159:Themindset
746:Alphachimp
353:Eluchil404
274:tmorton166
272:(formerly
60:2006-07-26
31:successful
503:rovingian
296:tianpower
239:RandyWang
179:Advise me
1598:Category
1425:and the
1356:Comments
1346:Edgar181
1328:contribs
1324:messages
1062:Tyrenius
858:contribs
846:unsigned
729:Imhungry
711:=Nichalp
653:Lectonar
591:негідний
571:. Meets
481:ScotchMB
471:ScotchMB
304:Support.
192:DarthVad
77:contribs
1481:things.
1338:Neutral
1308:Neutral
1296:Neutral
1276:Neutral
1254:Neutral
1155:Neutral
1125:Neutral
1114:(talk)
1101:Neutral
1095:Neutral
850:Caf3623
807:Support
793:Grafikm
787:Support
772:Support
764:W.marsh
760:Support
741:Support
725:Support
716:«Talk»=
707:Support
695:Support
661:Support
649:Support
637:Support
625:Support
614:iva1979
604:Support
585:Support
569:Support
536:support
524:Support
467:Support
442:Support
430:Support
417:Support
407:Jaranda
403:Support
385:Support
373:Support
361:Support
345:Support
321:Support
284:Support
259:Support
235:Support
220:Support
208:Support
188:Support
155:Michael
152:Support
142:kantari
134:Support
128:Support
1300:Jusjih
1228:Errant
1201:Errant
1177:rbil10
1082:Oppose
1070:Oppose
1057:Oppose
1043:Taxman
1030:rbil10
986:Oppose
966:Oppose
936:Oppose
914:Oppose
834:Oppose
699:Taxman
629:AaronS
577:BryanG
556:Chaser
446:Seivad
395:*blah*
390:ctales
349:Tawker
309:Kungfu
268:Errant
212:Tawker
118:rbil10
93:rbil10
1364:Voice
1315:ndson
1260:Voice
1169:RyanG
1074:Aldux
1022:RyanG
1009:Sandy
994:Sandy
901:email
880:email
776:Kusma
733:here.
421:Robth
333:Welsh
247:rants
138:Nacon
110:RyanG
85:RyanG
62:(UTC)
16:<
1535:wonk
1383:See
1367:-of-
1320:page
1263:-of-
1145:talk
1138:Mets
918:Wisd
897:talk
876:talk
854:talk
814:Gang
779:(討論)
676:comm
673:rran
594:лють
550:and
347:per
337:ταλκ
312:Adam
175:desk
171:talk
71:talk
1539:Lar
1515:Lar
1370:All
1266:All
1140:501
970:Roy
928:n17
860:) .
817:sta
679:and
641:1ne
458:Joe
325:Run
323:--
288:Cel
1600::
1559:A:
1541::
1523:4.
1495:A:
1489:3.
1470:A:
1464:2.
1433:A:
1429:.
1415:1.
1348:)
1342:Ed
1326:-
1322:-
979:.
956:pm
942:Tu
856:•
825:~(
820:EB
526:.
517:)
513:,
509:,
335:|
306:--
292:es
252:)
190:.
181:)
36:.
1547:c
1545:/
1543:t
1517::
1391:.
1344:(
1330:)
1318:(
1313:@
1236:)
1209:)
1173:e
1147:)
1143:(
1026:e
977:A
975:.
973:A
949:s
923:e
899:/
878:/
852:(
687:r
683:e
669:e
665:T
610:S
559:T
515:@
511:C
507:T
505:(
498:e
493:M
428:'
393:*
329:e
276:)
243:/
241:(
200:r
196:e
177:·
173:·
169:(
114:e
89:e
74:·
69:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.