Knowledge (XXG)

1870:, also regretfully. I'm not the type of editor who looks at the raw numbers usually, but for a vandal fighter, there's some obvious concerns. Only 3,700 live edits is unusually low for an RfA, but I can overlook a lower count when edits are high quality participation in project areas, etc. For a vandal fighter, though, I need to see more than 1,000 edits over the past year. I don't think 1,000 vandal-fighting edits in the past year is sufficient to have the experience on community norms necessary to dive into areas like ANI, where this candidate states he wants to get involved. You can see this lack of experience in a few areas. Citing AfC as an administrative area, a lack of understanding of policies vs. guidelines in question 10, a lack of clear specialization in the project, etc. I don't care how long it takes to acquire the light polish necessary to become an admin, but I think it's clear that it hasn't been acquired by this editor yet. I also have some issues with the statement that the candidate has read and re-read the RFA advice continuously for their entire time on-site, which sounds like they see adminship as an end unto itself. That may or may not be true, but given the scrutiny admins are placed under, I worry when someone doesn't recognize how what they're saying may be perceived. You look like a great contributor, RegistryKey, and I hope you stick around after this. Please don't see this as a referendum on you as an editor. It's a referendum on whether you're ready for the type of extreme pressure and scrutiny that comes with wielding the mop. I'd much rather you gain some more experience and go into this eyes wide open than be given the mop this week, make some quick mistakes, and flame out. ~ 1920:. This was poorly thought-out, and the nominator really needed to do his homework. The user's real-life roles are irrelevant on-wiki, and I'd point out that Civil Air Patrol ranks are entirely training-based, not an indication of the equivalent in the armed forces. Given that the project cited as his area of activity is one I have been associated with for over a decade, the extent of RegistryKey's activity on WP:Freemasonry appears to be putting his name on the participants list - if he was ever really active, he hasn't been for over a year and a half (which is about when he joined). I went through his last few thousand edits trying to find activity on said project, and found that most of his edits are welcome notices to new users, and the occasional AIV report. That doesn't strike me as community participation that requires tools. As noted by others, the editor's activity level is low and sporadic, with no participation in "admin areas." I see no need for the tools, and no demonstration of the understanding required to use them. To back this up with data, the user tools show the most edits ever made to a mainspace page is 6, but 346 edits to the user's CSD log, and over 400 in their own userspace. That's over 9%, and most of the work is single, which I bet would be minor edits. Over half the user's edits were made in four distinct months. 11% of the editor's edits have been deleted. As a comparison, I'm at about 9%, and that's actively a result of trimming and editing in the course of COI and XfD over the course of 11 years (with one year of minimal activity). Pages I've edited have upwards of 50 edits on them sometimes. I'd 1394:: Not too confident in the candidate's willingness to read instructions given the first NOTNOW RfA, and almost no content work. I expect a minimum of at least some content creation in order to ensure that the candidate understands what policy is and is not, especially if the candidate plans to be a jack of all trades as an admin. I do not want to use quantitative measures in assessing the candidate, but 4,000 edits, and more importantly, mainly in units of 2 fighting vandals is very low to confidently support giving the candidate adminship for a lifetime. Almost no experience to the areas the candidate wishes to work in (e.g., only participated in 25 AfDs, few edits via AfC), and I also find the answer to Q2 highly unsatisfactory (an admin's best work should be more prodigious than determining the mass of all the feces generated by humanity given some arbitrary assumption. And what significance is updating the cover of J. of Some Univ. to Knowledge (XXG)?). I suggest that the candidate read 2513:"some experience in content creation" ok fair enough. But if a candidate for RFA who is otherwise suitable (knows policy and how to apply it, a decent track record at AFD and CSD, participates in DRN, always keeps a cool head, often deescalates situations, a clean block log) should be disqualified solely because they didn't create an article of their own or bring one up to FA or GA status. To me thats just absurd. And on track with the the Professor analogy, often dimes VP of Administration or VP of student services at a college has never taught in a class room yet their positions allow them to supervise college and university professors. And along the programer line the military does it all the time, so do several fortune 500 companies. Personnel issues don't necessarily require experience in that particular field. And I think that concept translates well over to wikipedia. To me a more pressing concern is how do administrators enforce 2525:). That should be the deciding factor not "content creation". There are plenty of good administrators on wikipedia who don't do a lot of content creation. I'm just saying yes content creation has a place but it shouldn't be the end all be all that it has become in RFAs. Especially with ridiculous requirements like "doesn't have 3 FA's and 10 GS's or 15 DYK's. I mean seriously? Thats just my view. We've lost out on a lot of contributors that would have been great administrators just because they don't have "significant content creation" or "too many semi-automated edits" (which you should expect from a vandal fighter) or "too many talk space edits" (again warnings from vandal fighters). There are at least 3 candidates for RFA that would be great administrators if we didn't put so much of an emphasis on "content creation". -- 1469:, not an aptitude for adminship. His CSD log is probative of competence but, at a dozen nominations per month, is otherwise completely unremarkable. The fact that the candidate is a net positive and clearly not a vandal is insufficient to prove his requisite content, collaborative, and consensus-judging abilities. His stated reasons for needing administrative rights don't fare any better: AFC is free to anyone with 90 days' tenure and 500 edits, and the various drama boards and deletion processes were well-staffed the last time I checked. Moreover, I would expect a candidate wishing to help out in these areas to have regularly participated, yet RegistryKey has only voted in one AFD this year and, according to the tool, has never performed a close. 1744:- Barely any experience in AFD or ANI, Only 820 edits made to article mainspace (and 1,793 edits made to talkspace) in the 2/3 years of being here and last but not least they've only made 283 edits this year..... The activity here is extremely low and to be completely honest I'm not seeing any need for the tools at all especially when you've not actually cleared any backlogs, The CSD log is great however I'm not seeing any experience anywhere else except CSD, I'm not saying you should be on here 24hrs a day racking up 10k edits a month but what I am saying is you need to be here more than you currently are, I wish you all the best with this RFA (and for future ones if need be), Thanks, – 1263: 191: 2355:. More importantly, it also creates an understanding by putting the administrator in the shoes of those whom they must interact and sometimes deeply affect. I recently went through a very long disagreement with another editor over civility and the insistence for strict adherence to the rules. Ultimately it did way more harm than good and I opted to concede the issue. As a result we were able to work together to get the article GA status and have discussed working together in the future. Being an admin can't always be about the policies and who wikilawyers them the best. 580:, "cool-down" blocks are not encouraged, there needs to be specific articulate Knowledge (XXG)-related conduct to justify an incivility block, hence the final warning to hopefully ensure the editor understands things moving forward. As to Editor B, hopefully they have notifications enabled, and so I would both leave a message on their talk page encouraging them to come talk to me, and email them the same. If I can show the editor that bad conduct from one editor is not indicative of the whole of Knowledge (XXG) then hopefully that editor will return to contribute. 1945:- Whoever it was that nominated this candidate did an extremely poor job. I am troubled by his answer to Q10, which is nonsensical and confusing. Most of his edits aren't even on the mainspace, but are just talk-page welcomes and AIV reports. The account is rarely active. He has little experience in AfD and ANI, has only created two articles (one of which has been deleted), he is inexperienced, and he seems to have trouble understanding Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. Welcoming users and submitting AIV reports does not require Administrator tools. 1418:: As mentioned above, you have very little content creation, while you seem like a good person, and i have nothing against you, I find that a very large amount of your edits, while a commendable amount at 3642, are mostly moving articles, reverting vandalism, which while commendable does not require nor give you the need for adminship. A lot of your edits are in talk space, you have also only created two pages, and again as likely put best by Majora, you show little experience in XFD, and again with ANI you have only posted 5 times. 1803:- I appreciate RegistryKey's enthusiasm and I really do hope this RfA doesn't turn them away from Knowledge (XXG) entirely. However, I think it is critically important for Admins to have some experience writing new content (which I have not seen from this editor) and 124 non-automated edits to article space is too few to gain a comprehensive understanding of the process of article-building. I do hope to see RegistryKey at RfA again in the future, but for now, it is too soon. All the best, -- 2473: 2051:, although regretfully because RegistryKey 2 seems like a good editor. I just don't see the need for the tools. The candidate states the desire to work in AFD, but there is a relatively low amount of participation there. Also, I think a bit more content creation is needed. I'm not talking 20 FAs or anything, but at least something more, perhaps even being involved in peer reviews or FAC. Finally, the lack of edits this year is a bit distressing. - 444:; all editors have the potential to be great editors, but they'll never get there if they get run off after encountering a hostile community. Additionally, a word of caution with regards to Editor B making blanket statements about having the other user blocked could be in order - Editor B should not be speaking with such certainly as to the actions an administrator might take. The scenario does not give a time-frame, so the 1091:. I don't feel convinced that the candidate has demonstrated a need for the tools, especially right now coming off an extended period of relative inactivity, and I find the answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3 to be almost alarmingly unimpressive. However I choose not to treat RfA as a fault-finding mission, and do not find a reason why RegistryKey cannot be trusted with the tools. Support per RfA is broken and we need more admins. 1201:(moved from neutral) per Biblio, HJ Mitchell, Amatulic. Still concerned about the dearth of experience at XFD and ANI, and would advise the candidate (if successful) not to do mopwork there until learning the ropes as a "regular" editor. But the answers (particularly to Q6, Q7, Q9 and Q11) are adequate, and convince me that he can be trusted not to do anything rash or drive off anyone who should be kept around. This is 208: 425:: Editor A, a newbie with a week's tenure and 75 edits, has changed every instance of "Israel" to "Occupied Palestine." Editor B, a stalwart with years of experience, reverts with the edit summary "RV anti-Israel POV-pusher." Editor A then repeats that first edit, and Editor B leaves them an aggressive note on their talk page threatening to have them "blocked faster than you imagine." What do you do? 1555:, so I'm not sure how they would use the mop in AfC. The lack of content creation (apart from 17 redirects) concerns me, as I prefer the closing admin at AfD to be more familiar with deletion criteria when closing. They identify as a vandal-fighter. Vandal-fighters tend to rack up high edit counts, yet the candidate has only 275 edits in the last calendar year, 109 of which have 1853:. I am concerned that the candidate did not adequately prepare for another RfA in addition. A colleague can achieve enormous gains for the project without being an admin. I would suggest the candidate carries on the positive work and attitude already shown, and is not discouraged by the increasingly likely outcome of this RfA. I hope to see you around in the long term. Regards 2658:, that is slightly reassuring -- though I see you also !voted the same way as the two editors being discussed -- but I would like to hear from the editors themselves, or at least one of them. Re-typing (part of) the !vote of the editor almost immediately preceding you on an RfA does not seem to me like the best way of expressing a reasoned opinion. 386:, there has either been nothing listed, or things have already been worked by other editors. In a similar vein, with DRN, even when there have been active items up, the discussion is already well-established and nearing conclusion. Looking at it now, I do see one currently in progress, and I will likely review it and see what viewpoints I can offer. 2327: 2443: 502: 2025:. This was an auto-fail RfA a mile off; I'm not sure why the nominator (an admin) couldn't see that but they've been mostly inactive the past four years. In addition to all the problems listed by others above, I'm very concerned about the candidate's several very premature requests for adminship or nomination 576: 2543: 1262: 1146: 575: 539: 476: 431: 2613: 2472: 564: 923: 351: 207: 2552: 2326: 1181: 596: 190: 2693: 2494: 1376: 227: 408: 2346: 2301: 516: 101: 2442: 1458: 1320: 501: 341: 1461: 2267: 1966: 327: 1277: 2347: 540: 2447:. If you are going to oppose, at least explain why you feel "article creation" is important more than the usual "its a major part of the project", so is counter vandalism work which RegistryKey is involved in. That is actually more required of an admin than content creation. -- 611: 1522:; candidate is to inexperienced. A very small amount of non-automated article space contributions. To resolve editorial conflicts you need to understand what an editor is experiencing and the only way to understand is to work on articles yourself. I'd would say have a look at 1459: 517: 1367: 1769:. I'd read through some of the recent unsuccessful and successful-but-close RfAs to look at the things that come up. Remember that if you come back it'll be a different set of people next time, who might have different things to say than those participating here. — 1765:- Sorry, RegistryKey. You're a valuable user, and I hope this experience with RfA doesn't get you down. While I don't typically have specific requirements in terms of statistics, numbers, namespaces, etc. I agree with some of those above who are effectively saying 317: 868:. We could use the perspective of someone who has experience but understands the feelings of newer users. Please look at his contributions, not arbitrary stats that show nothing personal about him. RfA is about the person, not how many points they've racked up. 157: 1161: 2034:. Something's very disturbingly off there. Frankly this lack of clue about Knowledge (XXG), and this over-desire for adminship, has me ill-disposed to this candidate's ever being trusted with the mop. We're here for the joy of it, not to exercise power. 1551:. As mentioned above, they have only 124 non-automated edits in mainspace. Very well, they have 51 edits to AIV (well done), but one who wishes to help out at AIV while having only 5 edits in that area does not convince. AfC does not require admin tools 1346:(a role that really tends to inflate edit counts) is surprising. Overall, I'm not convinced that they have enough experience in areas outside of vandal fighting, and I'm not even convinced that they have enough to use the tools in vandal fighting. FWIW, 432: 448: 89:. In today's RfA environment you may at first glance see that this is a second nom and immediately be biased, or see the "1 year and 10 months old, with 4,130 edits" and want to jump to the conclusion that he is not experienced enough, but don't 304:. Since the name is already there as created, that tells me that either it wasn't similar enough for the system to flag it, or the Account Creation Team already reviewed it and created it. Additionally I would encourage the user to put the {{ 1129:- I think this user has enough experience with what administrators need to know how to do. He asks questions where there is uncertainty, he interacts with the community in a civil manner, and he politely warns people who violate a policy. 2151: 964:. The A7 usages on his CSD log are overwhelmingly redlinks, which is a very positive indicator of his experience. Looking through his user talk archives, in his interactions with other editors, he seems very helpful and civil. Overall, a 2632:- DatGuy has probably read KGs comment and just used the phrase, If it helps I've started using phrase "sorry bud" and I'm sure I've used it in an RFA before so it's probably nothing sinister, just a big and harmless coincidence. – 1147: 1979: 945:. Has demonstrated a need for the tools, and the ability to use them wisely. Not concerned about the lack of content creation. A vandal who wants the tools to harm the project is not going to wait 1 year 10 months for them. 1062:- I am convinced that RegistryKey can be trusted with adminship despite his relative inexperience. The possible risks of giving him the added toolset are outweighed by the likely benefits of having him as an administrator. 2712: 153:. Does this mean I will never become an admin? I do not know, and yes I know it's not the end-all, be-all, I simply am looking for more ways to enable myself to be able to contribute. That said, as others have said, 1278: 1435: 1019:, there's no doubt this is an editor with a tentative need for the tools, who is likely a net positive and would act with the project's best interests at heart. I would have preferred to see some more experience ( 232: 1632: 2216: 465: 1479: 93:! Closing in on two years is more than enough time to learn our policies and the 4000+ edits RegistryKey has racked up are all in the right areas. This editor is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia ( 1472: 409: 1845: 565:(Editor-B) causing Editor-B to leave the project. What actions (if any) would you take to address the continued civility issue from Editor-A and to reassure Editor-B they are welcome on wikipedia? 249: 242: 145: 1828:'s oppose. I'm afraid the candidate's judgment about whether he's ready to become an administrator hasn't improved since his first RfA. I also think the answer to Q10 is strange at best.-- 477: 2495: 1465: 1350: 1182: 1899:, an article with obvious and severe problems that make it quite unfit for an encyclopaedia, and believe that this shows a lack of discernment quite unacceptable in an admin. Sorry, 1559: 2748: 1786:. Just nowhere near enough experience to be considered an admin, in my book. Work some more on some of the other projects around here and maybe this user can be reconsidered. - 1112:, it's the quality of his edits that count, not how many he has. I feel he has a good understanding of the rules and guidelines and is experienced enough to become an admin. 1325:) But I do care that I haven't seen anything on the candidate's qualifications. Plus, what does that journal in Q2 have to do with Knowledge (XXG)? Why have there only been 2544: 1329: 906: 807: 1968: 221: 802: 703: 881: 2545: 2302: 2178: 2767: 342: 1293: 656: 373: 2421: 177: 1333: 1889:. This editor appears to have many qualities, but not to have sufficient experience and judgement for greater responsibility. I am perturbed by the 643: 1395: 467: 745: 686: 924: 797: 680: 1372: 650: 1664: 556: 209: 30: 17: 2679: 114:! RegistryKey is is a mature and intelligent editor that wants to help. This is why I think RegistryKey should be given the tools. -- 436: 717: 636: 82: 2297: 1398: 1358: 1904: 833: 129: 1040:. Means well and is unlikely to be a disaster. The rest can be learnt, but it's a steep learning curve—hence, moral support. 2285:- I'd really like to support, because I see an editor who means well and is contributing to the project. But, WP:PROD on a 843: 1731: 695: 1638: 2391: 2380: 1227: 771: 864:. Looks fine to me. RegistryKey appears to be a clueful and competent editor, and there is no question that he is a 2207: 1900: 1002:, we need more admins, and everything I have seen here suggests that they would be a net positive with the tools. 394: 792: 560: 1808: 1601: 817: 738: 2548:, where adminship was basically a de facto Secret Service protecting the edits of a sockpuppet and spammer for 1243: 1096: 812: 787: 98: 1963: 1766: 1715: 1523: 383: 369: 154: 2072:- My examination of the candidate's history does not lead me to believe that they are qualified to be admin. 2568: 2480: 2161: 2077: 1659: 1405: 210: 2722: 2707: 2688: 2667: 2645: 2623: 2573: 2534: 2504: 2485: 2456: 2430: 2413: 2394: 2363: 2338: 2318: 2277: 2255: 2236: 2210: 2198: 2184: 2166: 2145: 2103: 2081: 2064: 2043: 2017: 1995: 1954: 1937: 1908: 1881: 1862: 1837: 1812: 1795: 1778: 1757: 1736: 1706: 1681: 1669: 1642: 1624: 1605: 1588: 1573: 1541: 1513: 1450: 1427: 1410: 1386: 1362: 1337: 1313: 1287: 1272: 1247: 1230: 1193: 1173: 1156: 1138: 1121: 1100: 1083: 1068: 1054: 1032: 1011: 994: 984: 956: 933: 915: 901: 885: 164: 135: 122: 60: 2557:, as well as the relations between editors who write the content. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not 2388: 2377: 2039: 1967: 1619: 1585: 1536: 1224: 1171: 1152: 1924: 1202: 766: 97:, 'nuff said!). Let's take a look at some of his userboxes. An active vandal-fighter, with an impressive 2409: 2194: 2026: 1988: 1080: 1049: 973: 630: 607: 402: 90: 76: 2747: 713: 297: 1492: 2426: 2232: 2222: 2095: 1950: 1804: 1597: 1355: 1210: 1134: 1117: 1007: 876: 731: 305: 2003: 1466: 410: 146: 2608: 1771: 1678: 1568: 1283: 1239: 1205:; a low likelihood of harm and a plausible case for being able to use some tools should be enough. 1092: 911: 899: 120: 94: 2373: 2268: 1220: 965: 865: 2564: 2476: 2157: 2140: 2125: 2073: 1858: 1846: 1791: 1651: 1401: 1188: 1024: 951: 301: 2522: 2514: 2264: 1896: 1476: 1369: 577: 572: 557: 441: 2718: 2684: 2663: 2619: 2526: 2467: 2448: 2273: 2251: 2035: 1933: 1726: 1698: 1615: 1582: 1528: 1507: 1423: 1307: 1164: 1148: 925: 548: 525: 338: 2294: 942: 604: 437: 150: 2405: 2331: 1982: 1447: 1382: 1077: 1066: 1041: 969: 626: 360: 159: 130: 86: 72: 55: 2518: 2352: 2348: 1976: 1972: 1493: 1485: 1481: 608: 561: 513: 445: 264: 2500: 2422: 2311: 2228: 2218: 2090: 2058: 1946: 1833: 1352: 1206: 1130: 1113: 1109: 1003: 872: 588: 1489: 838: 2695: 2674: 2653: 2633: 2361: 2179: 2008: 1825: 1745: 1560: 1279: 1268: 907: 895: 485: 116: 2761: 2135: 2120: 1962: 1871: 1854: 1787: 1650: 1334: 1183: 946: 457: 255: 149:. I simply do not have the persuasion to create content as easy as others may have - 1689: 2714: 2680: 2659: 2629: 2615: 2269: 2247: 1929: 1850: 1821: 1719: 1691: 1556: 1502: 1419: 1326: 1302: 979: 509: 498: 2694: 2601: 2192:– allowing the user time to respond to the new questions that have been posted. 1634: 1439: 1378: 1063: 2089: 2496: 2305: 2053: 1829: 1473: 2741: 1292: 2561:, so admins thus must understand the needs of content and content creators. 2356: 2246:– awaiting answers to queries, but am concerned as to the experience issue. 1264: 494: 433: 422: 1496:, while adequately staffed by capable closers, is suffering from a lack of 1238:- Not much to put here, honestly. I don't think he'll go rogue, but...meh. 1076:. RegistryKey 2 is as qualified as I was when I became admin back in 2007. 1484: 1971: 308:}} template up, or inform them that usernames can be changed via request. 102: 2404: 2751: 2007:, then that would be more in keeping with an active vandal-fighter 716:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 2558: 723: 533: 1377: 727: 201: 1300: 85:) – Today I have the pleasure of presenting to the community 1714:: Only two articles created, and one was deleted. Could be 29: 184: 2521: 2298: 2290: 2286: 2032: 2029: 1891: 674: 668: 662: 421: 300: 2376:, but I'm really not sure. I may move my vote later. 2372: 54:Final (21/34/10); ended 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 2206:, pending RK's answers to the additional questions. 826: 780: 759: 1023:) but hey, I've seen enough to give them a go -- 2546:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione 241:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 106:to do the job, and that I'm confident will do it 2592:Not about the candidate, refactored to talk page 1969:User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content 1488:is not so hard up, but could always use a hand; 693:Edit summary usage for RegistryKey can be found 2119:Placing myself here for now, leaning support. 739: 8: 296:1. I would advise this user to read through 1219:Per Biblio and Samtar. This user will be a 110:, and perhaps more importantly, will do it 95:he's identified to the Wikimedia Foundation 2614:any other explanations for it? thank you. 2587: 746: 732: 724: 1396:Knowledge (XXG):Advice for RfA candidates 1223:, and demonstrates a need for the tools. 468:Knowledge (XXG):Advice for RfA candidates 1677:: You are too inexperienced, sorry bud. 712:Please keep discussion constructive and 497:) You've come across an edit war on the 267:and see these usernames. What do you do? 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 7: 382:I have not. Whenever I have checked 2768:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 24: 2445:(95% accurate on AFD is amazing.) 571:I would caution Editor A to read 374:WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard 1581:- sorry but too inexperienced. 1916:- The nomination rationale is 493:(Borrowing this question from 284:Space exploration technologies 1: 1203:not supposed to be a big deal 2225:) 13:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2130:02:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 173:Questions for the candidate 2784: 2723:23:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2708:22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2689:22:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2668:22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2646:22:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2624:22:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2574:19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2535:19:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2505:14:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2486:05:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2457:03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2431:01:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 2414:22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2395:22:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2383:20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2364:18:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2339:18:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2319:17:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2278:14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2256:14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2237:21:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2211:13:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2199:13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2185:03:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2167:02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2146:03:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2104:01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 2082:00:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 2065:00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 2044:00:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 2018:23:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1996:22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1955:22:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1938:00:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 1909:21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1882:21:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1863:18:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1838:17:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1813:16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1796:15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1779:15:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1758:13:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1737:13:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1707:13:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1682:12:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1670:10:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1643:09:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1625:09:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1606:07:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1589:06:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1574:06:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1542:06:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1514:11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1451:06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1428:05:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1411:02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1387:04:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1363:04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1338:04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1314:03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1288:03:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1273:03:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1248:00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 1231:22:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1194:19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1174:19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1157:18:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1139:17:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1122:17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1101:16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1084:14:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1069:09:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1055:08:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1033:07:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 1012:04:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 995:04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 985:04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 957:03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 934:03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 916:02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 902:02:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 886:02:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 702:Previous RfA can be found 165:01:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 136:02:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 123:01:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 61:02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 1051:Penny for your thoughts? 587:Additional question from 547:Additional question from 524:Additional question from 484:Additional question from 456:Additional question from 393:Additional question from 359:Additional question from 254:Additional question from 228:quick to proclaim, "Well 2744:Please do not modify it. 368:Have you ever offered a 39:Please do not modify it. 1342:Only 4,000 edits for a 624:Links for RegistryKey: 512:is currently under the 1613:A lack of experience. 1462:uncomplicated debates. 870:Quality, not quantity. 411:not here to contribute 2287:12-minute-old article 1901:Justlettersandnumbers 1500:participation. Best. 395:GeneralizationsAreBad 31:request for adminship 839:Global contributions 1892:move into mainspace 1596:Too inexperienced. 793:Non-automated edits 718:their contributions 337:4. Obvious play on 143:I withdraw this RfA 91:drink that Kool-Aid 2227:Moved to support. 1089:Principled Support 772:Edit summary usage 720:before commenting. 302:Arcangela Paladini 272:Arcangela.paladini 40: 2736: 2735: 2531: 2453: 2389:ThePlatypusofDoom 2378:ThePlatypusofDoom 2317: 2154:Moved to oppose. 1879: 1702: 1225:ThePlatypusofDoom 1192: 930: 884: 852: 851: 372:or helped on the 339:Master of Puppets 281:Puppets of Master 38: 2775: 2746: 2705: 2700: 2678: 2657: 2643: 2638: 2612: 2605: 2588: 2572: 2529: 2484: 2471: 2451: 2437:General comments 2386:Moved to Support 2359: 2337: 2336: 2334: 2316: 2314: 2308: 2303: 2197: 2182: 2165: 2143: 2138: 2132:Moved to support 2128: 2123: 2101: 2093: 2061: 2056: 2013: 1991: 1985: 1894: 1875: 1843:Regretful Oppose 1776: 1774: 1755: 1750: 1724: 1705: 1703: 1700: 1696: 1657: 1654: 1571: 1566: 1512: 1510: 1505: 1482:New pages patrol 1442: 1409: 1370:their user stats 1312: 1310: 1305: 1186: 1167: 1052: 1046: 954: 949: 928: 898: 880: 788:Articles created 748: 741: 734: 725: 698: 690: 649: 597:What do you do? 278:LibreOffice user 250: 119: 87:User:RegistryKey 2783: 2782: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2749:this nomination 2742: 2737: 2701: 2696: 2672: 2651: 2639: 2634: 2606: 2599: 2593: 2562: 2532: 2474: 2465: 2454: 2439: 2357: 2332: 2330: 2328: 2312: 2306: 2304: 2270:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2193: 2180: 2155: 2141: 2136: 2126: 2121: 2114: 2096: 2091: 2059: 2054: 2011: 1989: 1983: 1890: 1878: 1824:'s neutral and 1805:Notecardforfree 1772: 1770: 1751: 1746: 1720: 1699: 1692: 1690: 1655: 1652: 1641: 1569: 1561: 1508: 1503: 1501: 1490:requested moves 1440: 1399: 1308: 1303: 1301: 1256: 1165: 1108:- I agree with 1050: 1042: 983: 952: 947: 931: 894: 882:Reform project. 858: 853: 848: 822: 776: 755: 754:RfA/RfB toolbox 752: 694: 642: 625: 621: 558:Civility Issues 470:as an example? 240: 175: 115: 70: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2781: 2779: 2771: 2770: 2760: 2759: 2754: 2753: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2670: 2609:KGirlTrucker81 2595: 2594: 2591: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2538: 2537: 2528: 2508: 2507: 2489: 2488: 2460: 2459: 2450: 2438: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2416: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2341: 2321: 2280: 2258: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2201: 2187: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2148: 2113: 2110: 2108: 2106: 2084: 2067: 2046: 2020: 1998: 1964:WP:NOTQUITEYET 1957: 1940: 1911: 1884: 1876: 1865: 1840: 1815: 1798: 1781: 1773:Rhododendrites 1767:WP:NOTQUITEYET 1760: 1739: 1716:WP:NOTQUITEYET 1709: 1684: 1679:KGirlTrucker81 1672: 1666:(see my edits) 1645: 1637: 1627: 1608: 1591: 1576: 1545: 1524:WP:NOTQUITEYET 1517: 1467:hat collecting 1453: 1430: 1413: 1389: 1365: 1344:vandal fighter 1340: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1290: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1240:Reaper Eternal 1233: 1214: 1196: 1176: 1159: 1141: 1124: 1103: 1093:Snuge purveyor 1086: 1071: 1057: 1035: 1021:not just edits 1014: 997: 987: 977: 959: 936: 927: 918: 904: 888: 857: 854: 850: 849: 847: 846: 841: 836: 830: 828: 824: 823: 821: 820: 815: 810: 805: 800: 795: 790: 784: 782: 778: 777: 775: 774: 769: 763: 761: 757: 756: 753: 751: 750: 743: 736: 728: 709: 708: 707: 700: 691: 620: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 591: 584: 583: 582: 581: 551: 544: 543: 542: 541: 528: 521: 520: 519: 518: 488: 481: 480: 479: 478: 460: 453: 452: 451: 450: 416: 415: 414: 397: 390: 389: 388: 387: 384:WP:3rd opinion 370:WP:3rd opinion 363: 356: 355: 354: 353: 346: 345: 344: 343: 332: 331: 330: 329: 322: 321: 320: 319: 312: 311: 310: 309: 294: 286: 285: 282: 279: 276: 275:CB240HYKbmjdpr 273: 269: 268: 258: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 215: 214: 213: 212: 195: 194: 193: 192: 174: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 155:WP:NOTQUITEYET 69: 66: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2780: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2763: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2745: 2739: 2738: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2706: 2704: 2699: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2676: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2655: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2642: 2637: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2610: 2603: 2597: 2596: 2590: 2589: 2575: 2570: 2566: 2565:Esquivalience 2560: 2556: 2551: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2533: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2482: 2478: 2477:Esquivalience 2469: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2400: 2396: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2362: 2360: 2354: 2350: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2335: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2315: 2309: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291:under 3 hours 2288: 2284: 2281: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2224: 2220: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2196: 2195:North America 2191: 2188: 2186: 2183: 2177: 2174: 2173: 2168: 2163: 2159: 2158:Esquivalience 2153: 2149: 2147: 2144: 2139: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2105: 2102: 2100: 2094: 2088: 2085: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2074:Beyond My Ken 2071: 2068: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2057: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2030: 2027: 2024: 2021: 2019: 2016: 2015: 2006: 2002: 1999: 1997: 1994: 1992: 1986: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1943:Strong Oppose 1941: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1914:Strong oppose 1912: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1874: 1869: 1866: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847:Esquivalience 1844: 1841: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1799: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1775: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1749: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1723: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1704: 1697: 1695: 1688: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1676: 1673: 1671: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1649: 1646: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1617: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1592: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1575: 1572: 1567: 1564: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1525: 1521: 1518: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1477: 1475: 1470: 1468: 1463: 1457: 1454: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1434: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1407: 1403: 1402:Esquivalience 1397: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1371: 1366: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1321:userboxes."? 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1236:Moral Support 1234: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1197: 1195: 1190: 1185: 1180: 1177: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1160: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1142: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1070: 1067: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1053: 1047: 1045: 1039: 1038:Moral support 1036: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1022: 1018: 1015: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 998: 996: 993: 991: 988: 986: 981: 975: 971: 967: 963: 960: 958: 955: 950: 944: 940: 937: 935: 932: 922: 919: 917: 913: 909: 905: 903: 900: 897: 893:. As nom. -- 892: 889: 887: 883: 878: 874: 871: 867: 863: 860: 859: 855: 845: 842: 840: 837: 835: 832: 831: 829: 825: 819: 816: 814: 811: 809: 806: 804: 801: 799: 796: 794: 791: 789: 786: 785: 783: 779: 773: 770: 768: 765: 764: 762: 758: 749: 744: 742: 737: 735: 730: 729: 726: 722: 721: 719: 715: 705: 701: 697: 692: 688: 685: 682: 679: 676: 673: 670: 667: 664: 661: 658: 655: 652: 648: 645: 641: 638: 635: 632: 628: 623: 622: 618: 610: 606: 602: 599: 598: 595: 592: 590: 586: 585: 579: 574: 570: 567: 566: 563: 559: 555: 552: 550: 546: 545: 538: 535: 534: 532: 529: 527: 523: 522: 515: 511: 507: 504: 503: 500: 496: 492: 489: 487: 483: 482: 475: 472: 471: 469: 464: 461: 459: 455: 454: 447: 443: 439: 435: 430: 427: 426: 424: 420: 417: 412: 407: 404: 403: 401: 398: 396: 392: 391: 385: 381: 378: 377: 375: 371: 367: 364: 362: 358: 357: 350: 349: 348: 347: 340: 336: 335: 334: 333: 326: 325: 324: 323: 316: 315: 314: 313: 307: 303: 299: 295: 293: 290: 289: 288: 287: 283: 280: 277: 274: 271: 270: 266: 262: 259: 257: 253: 252: 251: 248: 247:two questions 244: 231: 226: 223: 222: 220: 217: 216: 211: 206: 203: 202: 200: 197: 196: 189: 186: 185: 183: 180: 179: 178: 172: 166: 163: 162: 156: 152: 148: 144: 141: 140: 139: 137: 134: 133: 127: 126: 125: 124: 121: 118: 113: 109: 105: 100: 96: 92: 88: 84: 81: 78: 74: 67: 65: 64: 63: 62: 59: 58: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 2743: 2740: 2702: 2697: 2640: 2635: 2598: 2554: 2549: 2468:Cameron11598 2444: 2418: 2401: 2385: 2369: 2368: 2343: 2323: 2299:this WP:PROD 2289:and another 2282: 2260: 2243: 2215: 2203: 2189: 2175: 2150: 2131: 2109: 2098: 2092:☾Loriendrew☽ 2086: 2069: 2052: 2048: 2036:Softlavender 2022: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1981: 1959: 1942: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1886: 1872: 1867: 1851:User:Rebbing 1842: 1817: 1800: 1783: 1762: 1752: 1747: 1741: 1732: 1727: 1721: 1711: 1693: 1686: 1674: 1665: 1661:(talk to me) 1660: 1647: 1629: 1616:Class455fan1 1614: 1610: 1593: 1578: 1562: 1552: 1548: 1546: 1537: 1532: 1529: 1527: 1519: 1497: 1478: 1471: 1464: 1460: 1455: 1446: 1438: 1437: 1432: 1415: 1391: 1373: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1330: 1322: 1297: 1259: 1235: 1221:net positive 1216: 1198: 1178: 1166:Juliancolton 1163: 1149:FeydHuxtable 1144:Weak support 1143: 1126: 1105: 1088: 1073: 1059: 1043: 1037: 1028: 1025: 1020: 1017:Weak support 1016: 999: 992: 989: 966:net positive 961: 938: 920: 890: 869: 866:net positive 861: 711: 710: 683: 677: 671: 665: 659: 653: 646: 639: 633: 600: 593: 568: 553: 549:Cameron11598 536: 530: 526:VarunFEB2003 510:Donald Trump 505: 499:Donald Trump 490: 473: 462: 428: 418: 405: 399: 379: 365: 352:an interest. 291: 260: 246: 239: 229: 224: 218: 204: 198: 187: 181: 176: 160: 142: 131: 128: 111: 107: 103: 79: 71: 56: 53: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 2406:Jonathunder 2333:MusikAnimal 2099:(ring-ring) 1984:Omni Flames 1926:consistency 1763:Weak Oppose 1630:Weak Oppose 1044:HJ Mitchell 970:Enterprisey 844:User rights 834:CentralAuth 627:RegistryKey 361:Chickadee46 306:distinguish 298:WP:USERNAME 161:RegistryKey 132:RegistryKey 73:RegistryKey 57:RegistryKey 47:RegistryKey 2650:Thank you 2550:four years 2423:epicgenius 2229:FourViolas 2219:FourViolas 1947:Ethanlu121 1897:Scott Nute 1653:Eurovision 1570:parlez moi 1474:slash line 1207:FourViolas 1131:CLCStudent 1114:Woodstop45 1004:Tazerdadog 978:(formerly 943:WP:CLUEful 827:Cross-wiki 808:AfD closes 619:Discussion 603:While the 589:Ethanlu121 449:vandalism. 263:You visit 147:WP:WikiElf 68:Nomination 2675:Davey2010 2654:Davey2010 2374:WP:NETPOS 2293:seem too 2181:Full Rune 1918:atrocious 1826:Davey2010 1598:Andrew D. 1327:250 edits 1280:Ajraddatz 908:Ajraddatz 803:AfD votes 798:BLP edits 669:block log 612:behavior. 508:For one, 486:Lord Roem 434:West Bank 423:West Bank 2762:Category 2523:WP:CIVIL 2515:WP:CIVIL 2295:WP:BITEy 1855:Irondome 1788:SanAnMan 1639:Contribs 1557:occurred 1184:Amatulić 1179:Support. 818:PROD log 781:Analysis 760:Counters 637:contribs 578:WP:CIVIL 573:WP:CIVIL 458:Irondome 442:WP:CIVIL 318:picture. 256:SSTflyer 83:contribs 2715:MPS1992 2681:MPS1992 2660:MPS1992 2630:MPS1992 2616:MPS1992 2555:content 2527:Cameron 2449:Cameron 2419:Neutral 2402:Neutral 2370:Neutral 2344:Neutral 2324:Neutral 2283:Neutral 2261:Neutral 2248:Kierzek 2244:Neutral 2204:Neutral 2190:Neutral 2176:Neutral 2112:Neutral 2005:a month 1930:MSJapan 1822:Kudpung 1722:MRD2014 1694:Aloha27 1635:Dat Guy 1586:Snowman 1498:studied 1456:Oppose. 1436:time.-- 1420:Iazyges 1348:anybody 1323:Really? 1296:a mere 1294:reports 1260:Oppose. 1217:Support 1199:Support 1127:Support 1106:Support 1074:Support 1060:Support 1000:Support 990:Support 980:APerson 962:Support 939:Support 926:Cameron 921:Support 891:Support 862:Support 856:Support 813:CSD log 644:deleted 605:WP:SOCK 438:WP:BITE 151:WP:NEIA 99:CSD log 2602:DatGuy 2519:WP:NPA 2392:(talk) 2381:(talk) 2353:WP:MOS 2349:WP:GNG 2307:Frank 2087:Oppose 2070:Oppose 2060:Verbum 2049:Oppose 2023:Oppose 2014:jones 2001:Oppose 1977:WP:NPP 1973:WP:AFD 1960:Oppose 1922:expect 1887:Oppose 1868:Oppose 1818:Oppose 1801:Oppose 1784:Oppose 1742:Oppose 1712:Oppose 1687:Oppose 1675:Oppose 1648:Oppose 1611:Oppose 1594:Oppose 1579:Oppose 1553:at all 1549:Oppose 1538:(talk) 1530:Yellow 1520:Oppose 1441:Church 1433:Oppose 1416:Oppose 1392:Oppose 1379:Majora 1254:Oppose 1228:(talk) 1110:Biblio 1078:Deryck 1064:Kurtis 873:Biblio 767:XTools 609:WP:IAR 514:WP:1RR 446:WP:1RR 265:WP:UAA 2698:Davey 2636:Davey 2559:Nomic 2530:11598 2497:Bbb23 2452:11598 2313:talk 2142:flyer 2127:flyer 1830:Bbb23 1748:Davey 1583:Giant 1565:slava 1533:Dingo 974:talk! 953:flyer 929:11598 714:civil 651:count 243:limit 112:often 104:wants 33:that 16:< 2719:talk 2703:2010 2685:talk 2664:talk 2641:2010 2620:talk 2569:talk 2501:talk 2481:talk 2427:talk 2410:talk 2358:Mkdw 2274:talk 2265:this 2252:talk 2233:talk 2223:talk 2162:talk 2152:NAC. 2078:talk 2040:talk 1990:talk 1951:talk 1934:talk 1905:talk 1859:talk 1849:and 1834:talk 1820:per 1809:talk 1792:talk 1753:2010 1701:talk 1620:talk 1602:talk 1563:Dsch 1526:. - 1504:Rebb 1424:talk 1406:talk 1383:talk 1374:want 1359:7754 1356:chen 1304:Rebb 1284:talk 1269:talk 1265:Glrx 1244:talk 1211:talk 1189:talk 1153:talk 1135:talk 1118:talk 1097:talk 1008:talk 912:talk 877:talk 704:here 696:here 681:rfar 663:logs 631:talk 495:John 440:and 328:AGF. 108:well 77:talk 2351:to 2208:GAB 2137:SST 2122:SST 2055:Pax 2010:Ron 1975:or 1895:of 1873:Rob 1777:\\ 1718:. — 1656:Nim 1509:ing 1494:AFD 1486:AFC 1331:Why 1309:ing 1298:124 1029:tar 1026:sam 948:SST 687:spi 657:AfD 594:12. 562:ANI 554:11. 531:10. 245:of 233:it. 2764:: 2721:) 2687:) 2666:) 2622:) 2563:— 2517:, 2503:) 2475:— 2429:) 2412:) 2329:— 2310:| 2276:) 2254:) 2235:) 2156:— 2134:. 2080:) 2042:) 2031:, 2028:, 1953:) 1936:) 1928:. 1907:) 1877:13 1861:) 1836:) 1811:) 1794:) 1604:) 1426:) 1400:— 1385:) 1353:Rs 1335:Ed 1286:) 1271:) 1246:) 1170:| 1155:) 1137:) 1120:) 1099:) 1081:C. 1048:| 1010:) 976:) 968:. 941:. 914:) 879:) 675:lu 601:A: 569:A: 537:A: 506:A: 491:9. 474:A: 463:8. 429:A: 419:7. 406:A: 400:6. 380:A: 376:? 366:5. 292:A: 261:4. 225:A: 219:3. 205:A: 199:2. 188:A: 182:1. 37:. 2717:( 2683:( 2677:: 2673:@ 2662:( 2656:: 2652:@ 2618:( 2611:: 2607:@ 2604:: 2600:@ 2571:) 2567:( 2499:( 2483:) 2479:( 2470:: 2466:@ 2425:( 2408:( 2272:( 2263:– 2250:( 2231:( 2221:( 2164:) 2160:( 2097:☏ 2076:( 2038:( 2012:h 1993:) 1987:( 1949:( 1932:( 1903:( 1857:( 1832:( 1807:( 1790:( 1733:C 1728:T 1622:) 1618:( 1600:( 1422:( 1408:) 1404:( 1381:( 1282:( 1267:( 1242:( 1213:) 1209:( 1191:) 1187:( 1151:( 1133:( 1116:( 1095:( 1006:( 982:) 972:( 910:( 896:œ 875:( 747:e 740:t 733:v 706:. 699:. 689:) 684:· 678:· 672:· 666:· 660:· 654:· 647:· 640:· 634:· 629:( 413:. 230:I 138:' 117:œ 80:· 75:(