2017:--Viewing contribution data for user Sam Vimes (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 196 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 14, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 1, November, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.49% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 8.5 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 846 edits) : Major article edits: 99.76% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 1.28% (64) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.84% (242) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 31.12% (1556) Minor article edits marked as minor: 5.99% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1938 | Average edits per page: 2.58 | Edits on top: 8.74% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 80.58% (4029 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.48% (124 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 16.94% (847 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.76% (38 edit(s)) Edits by Knowledge (XXG) namespace: Article: 77.54% (3877) | Article talk: 3.42% (171) User: 5.12% (256) | User talk: 4.16% (208) Knowledge (XXG): 4.86% (243) | Knowledge (XXG) talk: 1.98% (99) Image: 0.1% (5) Template: 1.4% (70) Category: 0.88% (44) Portal: 0.1% (5) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.44% (22)
657:- good grief, if the only complaint is that he doesn't always warn vandals, then he sounds like a good candidate to me. Can anyone honestly say that they have left a warning in every single case of vandalism they have reverted? Sometimes, I have reverted and someone has beaten me to the punch. Sometimes, I'm reverting day-old vandalism to something on my watchlist and there just isn't a point - whoever did it is probably not on the same IP. Sometimes, there are already eleventy billion "the next time you vandalize you will be blocked" messages on the talk page and one more just isn't going to matter that much. Yes, warning templates obviously should be left most of the time, but this is something that can simply be explained to the user. I don't see a reason to oppose if that is the only problem.
432:
has written on many different types of sport is no different to the fact that there have been many admins (not least of all BD2412 of all people) who concentrate on writing in an equally focused range of topics, such as law, politics, geography of their given country, history of their given country, only vandalism-reverts in the case of
Naconkantari. He is a very humble and gracious person, and I am 100% confident that he will warning vandals appropriately. Furthermore, I do not see how not doing so is an abuse of tools. Sam definitely gave me a good impression of WP when I was new, in upholding its good name, so I think his ability to have a positive effect on (particularly new) contributors would also be much enhanced as an admin.
1151:(I would have supported earlier but somehow this AfD slipped through my radar in the last week.) Moreover, it seems to me that the bulk of the criticism below is that Sam does a lot of great work with the fixing of the vandalism, but he just doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's with the warnings. So, if it helps, think of him as that crusty and ill-spoken cop who hates to file paperwork and always has the captain riding his ass, but in the end always gets his man. Like, say, Nick Nolte in
545:. The initial versions were infested with fallacies and nonsense from schoolkids. After noting his concerns on the talkpage, Sam Vimes took it upon himself to sort out the huge list of nonsense and rewrite the entire thing making a much better article. That is the type of Wikipedian we need. Also, I think it is wrong to oppose because he does not warn vandals after reverting the vandalism. Really, we should be glad that he is willing to RC patrol
1574:
this hard. I stress that this is not a reflection on Sam's abilities as an editor, which are greatly appreciated. I'm just not convinced that the time is right for Sam to be an admin. Sam: if you show more involvement in the admin areas of
Knowledge (XXG), I am very likely to support your next RFA, if this one does not reach consensus. If you don't, then please realise that if being an admin is 'no big deal', not being one isn't either.
1569:
issue is a concern, but not the only one. Whilst I realise that the 'one vandal edit cases' warning is not always appropriate looking through contributions I saw many examples when warnings should have been given. Whilst the reply above by
Blnguyen rightly points out that a lot of the reverts are to watchlisted articles (a very good thing, and it is extremely valuable to have editors doing that), I can't see any reports to
1423:, I'm sorry but there's not really much point in reverting the usual vandal without warning them. I learnt this some time ago. Admins must know how to deal with vandalism properly, if you can't do the basic warnings to users while patrolling how will I know you can deal with vandals as an admin? You are a great editor but don't seem to be ready for it just yet.--
885:. If the fine job he has done as an editor is any indication, I think he will make a fine editor. He appears to have good judgment and a pleasant demeanour that will be required as an admin. The objections regarding failing to warn vandals seems rather minor to me, given that no one is perfect and that adminship is no big deal. I also concurr with
1469:
not seem to pick up the same hostile attention as politics. Which is another reason why content specialists should not be kept separate from this type of work - they can pick up misinformation-vandalism which a person manning
Vandalproof or CDVF does not. So the slowing down of anti-vandal fighting is incorrect.
1568:
I have thoroughly reviewed the comments by supporters above and on my talk page. However, I do remain unconvinced. Admin status is not granted as a reward for good contributions (I'm not disputing that they are good, nor am I disputing that Sam is a great asset to
Knowledge (XXG)). The test templates
1534:
I have to say wrt the comments on the sport, there is a a variety of different types of sports involved, across a wide historical era - I can recall articles about 19th century
English cricket as well as contemporary cricket - as well as there being a wide global coverage of the sports involved. This
1150:
as per
Blnguyen, Sjakalle, and FloNight, and even more on the great interactions I've had with this user personally. He is a User Who Makes Knowledge (XXG) Better, and even more importantly vis-à-vis becoming an admin, he is a user who understands the Mission and has, does and will contribute to it.
734:
I'm breaking my no-RfA rule here for Sam. He is an excellent editor and his answers to the questions below show great maturity. I note that I do not always place a vandal warning on every vandalism revert I perform. Often (e.g. AOL), it's worse than useless. Other times, such as obviously one-off
1573:
of vandals needing to be blocked. I am not fully satisfied by the answer to
Gwernol’s question, as it doesn’t (in my opinion) show a full understanding of the issues surrounding warning people. There are other things, but rather than me taking all day explaining please respect that I have considered
1516:
templates, but after further review, I see more not-so-pleasant things. Namely (p) over 11,000 edits, but fewer than 500 project edits (familiarity with the ins-and-outs?), fewer than 300 article talk page edits and fewer than 500 user talk page edits (people skills?), and an overemphasis on cricket
1396:
One thing that does annoy me on
Knowledge (XXG) is those editors who are happy to rollback vandalism, or test edits, but will not then add any warning templates to the relevant users' talk pages. I've come across Sam on cricket articles, and he is a very dedicated editor, however I cannot support at
406:
for a start). I have found Sam to be always sincere in his editing and approach and as such, his answer to
Gwernol's question below should put people's minds at ease if they have any doubts regarding the warning template issue. I personally think that's a bit of a non-issue in terms of opposing an
298:
that warning obvious one-off vandalism is a bit of a waste. I think that Sam will take on the messages put forward in the oppose votes and will warn vandals a bit more than he does now. As well as this anti-vandal work, Sam says that he will help out with deletion issues. There is a bit of a backlog
2395:
Regardless of the efforts to write policy to cover all eventualities, there will be times when doing the right thing for the encyclopedia involves doing an action not covered explicitly by policy. Therefore, I don't think such actions should automatically be sanctioned, but decisions should instead
1468:
Actually, most of the reverts that Sam does are on cricket articles, and are not nonsense but rather deliberate misinformation - without content specialists like him, a lot of cricket vandalism would not be detected as they are not usually obscene vandalism which is picked up by bots - cricket does
361:
per above. To forget to warn vandals, even repeatedly, is not a horrible offense. This argument seems to form just about 90% of the opposition's argument. We can collectively take it upon ourselves to politely remind him, and I'm sure that Sam would kindly vow to remember to warn vandals. I also
332:
good user, has a strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Knowledge (XXG) articles and has also contributed to various project spaces, trustworthy, engages in administrator-like work and debates (wikiproject, afd, arbcom elections), writes non-stub articles, understands policy -
237:
is not a reason to oppose a valuable vandalhunter who could use the extra buttons in order to continue useful anti-vandalism work. His answers suggest that this isn't even 100% accurate. Positive reinforcement is better than negative, so: I support Sam Vimes becoming an admin as this user will from
2178:
I'm sure that Sam does not need me to defend him - his actions speak for themselves. However, given the slew of "does not warn vandals" opposition, I think it would be useful to know (a) how often Sam has reverted vandalism in, say, the last month or six months; and (b) how often he warns vandals
1940:
Although he has failed to warn vandals, his contributions to Knowledge (XXG) is immense. I feel that it is not right to oppose him on this account but I cannot give him my support as well because of the above-mentioned fallacy. If he starts, warning vandals, I would definitely support him in a few
431:
for more evidence of his collaborative abilities and understanding. As for the comments about the diversity, Sam has written on a variety of sports and the participation of a people from a variety of countries in the given sports throughout a wide time era of the history of sport. The fact that he
1377:
Not everyone joined up to fight vandalism. In fact, hopefully nobody did, that's not what we're here for. I'm a poor RC patroller, but have fared fine as an administrator. I will never understand this clique-ish trend towards opposing fine, sensible people who haven't reached your level of vandal
293:
For starters, Sam will be a trustworthy admin. He has shown a great committment to wikipedia with the quality and amount of contributions that he has made. He is also a civil user, and will therefore be able to negotiate in a civil way with other admins and users, as admins must do. Sam will deal
1923:
Despite a very large number of contributions, seems to have a narrow range of interest and relatively little project-space involvement. Can't oppose on vandal-warning grounds because I agree that it's a bit of a waste to warn obvious one-off vandalism of the "Hi mom/Dan was here/Kelly is a jerk"
1535:
would be about the same as many successful RfAs I have witnessed and supported where the candidate in question focused soley on one field, such as computer games, history/geography/politics/law of their country. As I said before, a lot of project edits are derived from "voting" on AfDs.
1895:
Is that really what Sam says? I read he says that warnings sometimes have no value. Anyone who has done vandalism reverting for half an hour will work this out for themselves. (Sorry to interject – not my normal style – but I feel it necessary to correct this misinterpretation.)
1885:
due to warning problems - not because he doesn't use them (can't expect everyone to have the time to do it every revert), but because his answer to Gwernol's question before seems to suggest that he believes that warnings have no value. Certainly not a good quality in an admin.
1005:. Excellent contributor, and I'm not convinced that a lack of vandal warnings is a good enough reason to believe that the candidate will abuse admin tools. To echo what BigDT said before, can anyone here really say they've warned every vandal they've reverted? I know I haven't.
427:. Also, as per the high project edits, most people have high project edits due to "voting" on AfDs, and in the case of most AfD entries, the vast majority have little meaningful comment, and a lot of people with high project count repeatedly refer to it literally as a vote. See
87:. There were some concerns in his last nomination that he had broken rules in creating article content in templates, but I believe this issue is now resolved (it was always a temporary measure in any event) and consigned to history. I am sure that he will be a good admin.
238:
now onwards generally warn vandals when appropriate. Easy. Also, specialisation in article development is a Good Thing. Not everyone needs to be generalists and Knowledge (XXG) benefits form having specialists - in any subject - on board and equipped with the right tools.
450:, this is what adminship is for: trusted contributors who we don't fear will misuse some extra helpful buttons. Sam is a fine editor to whom there is no reason not to give the buttons. None of those opposing have presented a single coherent reason for mistrusting his
1517:/ sports related pages. This is despite (d) a very large number of edits and many months of experience. As a side comment, I'm surprised by the fact that you have only eight minor edits in that past 500 contributions (I'm not opposing on those grounds of course).
1829:
Oh no, you guys probably don't know Anwar too well. The Diablo Test is his excuse for opposing everyone, considering you received a lot of support from Indian members of WikiProject Cricket and the like, you cannot expect to get a support vote from Anwar.
299:
with image deletion, and from what I've seen of Sam, he will carry out these deletions as set out in policy. Sam has been a fine contributor to wikipedia and I believe that he will also be a good admin based on the contributions that he has made.
207:. Maybe he could use the test templates a bit more, but I see nothing in more that eleven thousand edits to suggest that he'd abuse the tools. Lots of civil interactions, lots of admin-style tidying up. He'd clearly be an asset as an admin. --
1744:
per joturner, who makes an excellent case here. A large number of edits does not equate to administrative fitness if those edits do not show a well-rounded grasp of essential admin tasks (like talk-paging and projectspace experience.)
2344:
shows that I have been using test templates for quite some time - and I will admit that I have not been very active in recent changes patrol in the last four months (though checking my edit summaries for reverts will show the exact
1182:. I've had limited contact with Sam, but he's always been friendly and articulate, and his comments and edits well-considered. I also note that he is supported by a number of contributors in whose judgement I have complete faith.
981:, but, more importantly, because I so strongly disagree with several of the reasons for which others are opposing (my neutral would rest on altogether separate grounds), I think I must, like Carnildo, attempt to balance here.
842:. Seems like a fine candidate, and I have no doubt that he'll be warning vandals after this. If I remember right, though, Mr Vimes wasn't a great fan of being promoted. I say make him Captain of the Watch, but nothing higher.
640:, Sam is an excellent contributor who is reasoned in discussions, adept at recognising consensus and well versed in policies and guidelines. I only hope he doesn't go out and get Freddied at the announcement of this result.
2236:, seeing as things occasionally do go unnoticed there even with the large amounts of people watching it. I would also like to help with deletion issues, particularly images, where I understand there is a large backlog.
1323:. Content specialist with good leavening of experience in other areas. Vandalism warnings are a concern, but he has shown he can learn from suggestions, and I expect he'll warn vandals more reliably in the future. --
717:
per the "no big deal" clause, and because Sam's heart is in the right place, but I suggest an early period of mentorship from an experienced admin re. the need for warnings and reasonable adherence to process.
402:. Sam is a fine contributor who is always civil and helpful to other editors. He would make a first rate administrator. The image deletion backlog is a bit of a problem and all help there is appreciated (see
1074:
I think after all the comments below, he is not likely to forget to warn vandals anymore, and given as that is just about the only complaint, see no reason he should have to wait a few months to renominate.
1489:
Ditto with Joe. Vandals needed to be warned so they are aware people are here to revert their edits and so that they could possibly become good editors. It also gives standing for admins to warrant blocks.
378:, not warning vandals, thou annoying is a habit that will go away after the first dozen of commited vandals that he would not able to block due to the luck of warnings. Otherwise satisfy my criteria.
284:
Would you be kind enough to elaborate why you think Sam would be a good admin? I'm only asking because I'd be quite willing to reconsider my oppose if I see enough evidence to support your statement.
2296:
When I first started out, I was perhaps a little overenthusiastic in my article-writing, and had quite a few of my articles listred for deletion, which culminated in the mass nomination of them all
423:- I have noted that many people have cited that Sam is unproven in people-skills due to raw numbers, but I think that it can be seen to be incorrect by looking at his treatment of me as a newbie in
294:
with vandals and other disputes in the correct ways, and he has a good history in anti-vandalism. Sure, he might not warn vandals completely correctly, but I am pretty well of the same opinion of
2300:. However, they were all merged into individual articles on the season in the end, after some debate, and I think I have learned valuable lessons about referencing and neutral writing from that.
1037:
There is a surplus of vandals, but very few good contributors. After 19 reminders to warn vandals accordingly, I believe that Sam Vimes will take the necessary steps to correct this problem. --
2297:
1974:
I would have supported, but not giving out the vandalism warnings didn't do you any favors. Hopefuly, you can learn from that and in a couple of months you can reapply and make admin. —
611:
take the time to warn vandals. A quick {{subst:test}} ~~~~ on the person's talk page doesn't take long and helps people that find their vocation on Knowledge (XXG) is vandalfighting. --
1117:
One doesn't have to use the test1-4 templates to be a good vandalism reverter. They help, but can be cumbersome from time to time. They're no reason to oppose him getting admin. --
403:
2290:
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?
1378:
fighting, because they prefer to edit the encyclopedia's content. While I thank all vandal fighters for their diligence, that has absolutely no bearing on the editor's judgment.
333:
been active since 13 May 2005, percent edit summary use: 91.65% (for all edits), also rv vandalism with rare warnings is 100% better than not rv vandalism at all (agree with
1790:
1311:
the individual knows by know to use warnings and I trust they'll do it in the future and besides that the individual has plenty of wonderful experience and dedication -
2207:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
2179:
when he does. To be honest, I only warn vandals when there is a good reason, like I catch them doing it more than once, or it may become necessary to block. Posting
818:
despite lack of vandal warnings. Still a good editor, and his work shows he will make good-faith use of adminship, even if his Q&A proposals are a little vague. -
2322:
You often revert vandalism without following up with a warning to the vandal's talk page. Could you tell me why? And could you tell me when its appropriate to use {{
2262:, where I have written several biographies, detailed accounts of cricket tournaments, and also contributed to statistical lists. I'm rather pleased with the way
735:
incidents of vandalism, make a warning pointless. And an insistence on the Exact Specified Warning Templates (patents pending) is stupid, if I might be blunt.
1093:- with the feeling that half the oppose votes would have vanished if only he proclaimed loud and clear that he would use warnings regularly henceforth. Sam?? --
1397:
the present time someone who fails to use warning templates correctly. I would be happy to support in the future if there was evidence of their correct use. --
76:
1454:
not warning vandals damages the Knowledge (XXG). Why? Because admins shouldn't block without prior warning, making it slower to ban some blatant vandals!
2435:
2189:
messages to a drive-by single-article IP vandal is a waste of everyone's time. But then I am not a hard-core RC junkie - I just patrol my watchlist. --
1816:
Anwar, The Ashes as a FA, was a collaboration by a number of editors and Sam was certainly one of 3 or 4 major contributors at that time (and since). --
1209:- A valuable editor who will no doubt contribute a lot more to Knowledge (XXG) if admin powers are given. Just make sure you warn the vandals, though. -
2223:
2233:
2357:
test3: After repeat occurrences after a test1/test2 warning, or after an instance normally worthy of test1/test2 but with history of prior warnings.
221:
176:
after concerns about not warning vandals after reverting. Although I still maintain that he is a great editor & will not misuse the tools. --
2336:
I suppose there's not much I can do but to admit this - occasionally I revert vandals where no warning has proved to help (see the history of
2417:
2274:, a small settlement near where I live, turned out nicely after someone had written a hagiographic and false account of the place initially.
751:) subject specialists are good things, and my opinion of the subject shouldn't be (very) relevant. As below, lack of warnings not an issue.
2360:
test4: After a repeat occurrence after a test3 warning, or after an instance normally worthy of test2 but with history of prior blockings.
1163:
it! Had he never fixed a lick of vandalism, many of the detractors would have nothing to hang their hats on. Anyway, my two cents. --
33:
17:
2263:
1133:
Enough already about vandal warning templates. This seems to be an extremely weak reason to deny admin tools to an excellent editor.
549:, since it is a tedious job. I have no evidence whatsoever that he will abuse the admin tools, and find the opposition unconvincing.
2267:
778:
679:
1082:
1962:
I am not sure why he needs Admin tools. Concerns have been expressed about his vandalism reverts and he is not active in $ fD.
1716:
2259:
84:
1594:
489:
72:
1770:
1229:. I have only seen positive interaction from Sam, as well as wonderful contributions and a good attitude towards criticism.
781:
243:
2215:
1720:
570:
2252:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
362:
do not hold it against someone for specializing in a certain area of interest.). That's natural. If the user becomes
1556:
217:
2219:
2026:
470:
I was looking at his credentials and i think he will make a great admin, he just needs to start warning the vandals--
1555:. Can't find enough evidence that good use of admin tools will be made. Answers to questions worry me slightly. See
2354:
test2: "Nonsense", long lines of incohererent text ("zzyxyx...") or inappropriate images. Most first-time offences.
969:; I am certain a more decorous phrasing could be found). On the nomination and candidate alone, I'd typically be
424:
1674:
1213:
1155:...:) Seriously, think of it this way: the oppose votes of this type are effectively penalizing his bid, not
628:
1342:
1278:, and I feel I know him well enough to feel confident that he would not to abuse admin tools. No hesitation
1196:
1183:
567:
2000:
1693:
1617:
248:
208:
1943:
1521:
1503:
1401:
763:
683:
624:
428:
303:
271:
2400:
2390:
2364:
2304:
2278:
2240:
2196:
2012:
1987:
1981:
1966:
1954:
1928:
1925:
1900:
1890:
1877:
1859:
1846:
1824:
1809:
1797:
1776:
1761:
1749:
1736:
1724:
1697:
1680:
1657:
1643:
1639:
1624:
1601:
1578:
1563:
1545:
1542:
1529:
1494:
1479:
1476:
1463:
1458:
1444:
1429:
1411:
1386:
1372:
1353:
1327:
1315:
1303:
1299:
1286:
1269:
1253:
1238:
1221:
1199:
1186:
1172:
1142:
1125:
1109:
1105:. A committed, conscientious and courteous editor who will now, I'm sure, do his bit against vandalism.
1097:
1085:
1066:
1054:
1029:
1018:
997:
985:
957:
939:
929:
917:
897:
877:
863:
851:
834:
822:
810:
798:
786:
775:
755:
752:
739:
726:
709:
690:
675:
661:
649:
632:
615:
597:
573:
558:
533:
521:
504:
474:
462:
442:
439:
415:
394:
382:
370:
353:
341:
334:
324:
311:
295:
288:
279:
259:
226:
199:
182:
162:
136:
124:
107:
94:
2416:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
670:
1841:
1712:
1611:
1218:
1063:
1048:
592:
517:
482:
Quality contributor who brings a wealth of knowledge to Knowledge (XXG) and deserves to be an admin.
350:
2041:
1733:
1537:
1526:
1518:
1471:
890:
553:
501:
471:
434:
367:
133:
66:
934:
1952:
1408:
1383:
1347:
1195:
because he takes the time to revert vandalism even when he's really busy adding content. Sheesh!
1137:
846:
459:
379:
541:. Excellent contributor to the encyclopedia. The one example I remember best is the article on
2337:
1806:
1773:
1689:
1440:
1425:
1262:
1168:
954:
937:
875:
704:
321:
239:
155:
806:. Seems fine in general. Do warn the vandals, but I suspect you've learned that one already.
1976:
1635:
1455:
1295:
1079:
770:
760:
645:
2266:
turned out - a well-referenced article which only really lacks pictures. The same goes for
1570:
1435:
484:
2386:
2193:
1963:
1832:
1758:
1707:
1312:
1210:
1118:
1094:
1038:
1026:
886:
583:
513:
308:
300:
276:
268:
191:
121:
91:
1633:
as per Jo Turner, concerns raised re lack of vandal warning, and low project involvement.
407:
RfA - give him the tools and I'm certain he'll be an even more useful vandal fighter. --
337:) and finally, narrow range of interest can only be good for raising the quality of WP.
2397:
2396:
be made when the community or the Arbitration Committee finds the action unacceptable.
2361:
2327:
2323:
2301:
2275:
2237:
2022:
1794:
1671:
1589:
1575:
1560:
1369:
1283:
1012:
860:
831:
550:
530:
494:
285:
104:
80:
62:
48:
2429:
2183:
1948:
1897:
1856:
1821:
1510:
1420:
1398:
1379:
1337:
1247:
1234:
1134:
994:
982:
926:
894:
843:
736:
719:
455:
412:
1887:
1653:- per lack of vandal warnings, keep warning vandals and you'll fly by next time --
1491:
1164:
948:
872:
699:
612:
253:
177:
148:
1757:
Not warning vandals raises concerns about how the user would approach admin tasks
1666:
1654:
1324:
1106:
1076:
819:
807:
795:
641:
391:
338:
2214:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1609:
per lack of vandal warnings. This attention to detail is crucial in adminship.
794:. Failure to warn vandals is not my reason to oppose. I see no major problem.--
2410:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2190:
1874:
1746:
1023:
658:
118:
88:
830:. I nominate Sam last time, and I feel that he has only improved since then.
1782:
1007:
910:
1506:. I originally wasn't going to make a big fuss over the lack of use of the
2271:
1852:
1817:
1230:
542:
408:
2232:
I would probably help with matters requiring immediate attention on the
2380:
Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons
1688:
for lack of warnings. I am sure the candidate has learned what to do. -
2351:
test1: Light test edits which do little harm, such as "Adam was here".
2420:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
623:, another person I'm aware of who I thought was an admin already. --
1438:
and acts upon it, I'll be more than happy to support his next RFA.--
1294:
but would like to see more project involvement and use of warnings.
965:
per Carnildo (although I'm not certain that I concur in his use of
1851:
Yeah, I know, after having corresponded with Anwar previously --
1873:
due to warning issues and answer to Gwernol's question below.
2298:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Cricket_matches_articles
947:
I believe he will now warn vandals after this cruel process.
101:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
977:
ers that Sam will likely remedy the problems raised by the
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
75:) – Sam joined Knowledge (XXG) in December 2004 and was
2341:
1803:
1786:
404:
Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
1802:
Since May 2005, the article has changed significantly
1368:please warn vandals after reverting their changes.
2270:. Outside of cricket, I also think the article on
925:to balance out some of the silly oppose votes. --
581:work at Cricket WikiProject has been very good.
512:for one of the finest Wikipedians that I know.
83:in August 2005. He is a very active member of
1924:variety that is the user's only contribution.
1781:This one I really feel I must comment on. See
1159:his tireless anti-vandalism work, but in fact
1805:. Your name hardly crops up in the FAC then.
1559:. I stress the first paragraph on that page.
8:
132:, excellent contributor in every respect.
1787:I made major contributions to in May 2005
973:; here, though, I agree with many of the
58:(68/19/2) ended 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2034:
147:- Good admin candidate. Very helpful. -
2340:and warnings on several IPs). However,
366:narrow, however, it can be a problem.
1246:. Highly unlikely to abuse the tools!
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
2384:should be sanctioned? If so, how? --
7:
2264:2005-06 West Indian cricket season
1732:per issue of not warning vandals.
24:
2436:Successful requests for adminship
2268:2005-06 Australian cricket season
873:Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !
2216:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog
140:(sorry, I just couldn't resist)
1261:For the reasons stated above.
993:; seems like a good editor. --
1:
2258:I'm a longstanding member of
905:the only reason to oppose is
390:per Redvers and DarthVader --
2224:administrators' reading list
2234:Administrators' noticeboard
2203:Questions for the candidate
2025:'s edit summary usage with
698:-- as I did the last time.
425:User talk:Blnguyen/Archive1
2452:
2348:As for the exam question:
2218:, and read the page about
267:. Will make a good admin.
2401:21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2391:20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2365:17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2305:15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2279:15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2241:15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2197:10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
2013:09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1988:20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1967:13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1955:01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1929:20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1901:20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1891:12:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1878:01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1860:06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1847:06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1825:01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1810:11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1798:00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1777:23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1762:23:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1750:01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1737:19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1725:12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1698:07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1681:04:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1658:00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1644:00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1625:23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1602:21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1588:, does not warn vandals.
1579:10:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1564:21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1546:00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1530:18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1495:18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1480:06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1464:18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1445:19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1430:17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1412:17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1387:04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1373:16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1354:14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1328:07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1316:03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1304:02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1287:01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1270:00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1254:22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1239:11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1222:09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1200:04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1187:03:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1173:02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1143:00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1126:20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1110:16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1098:13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1086:15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1067:09:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1055:03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1030:23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1019:21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
998:16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
986:05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
958:05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
940:01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
930:23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
918:21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
898:18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
878:16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
864:15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
852:14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
835:10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
823:06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
811:04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
799:00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
787:23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
756:23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
740:22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
727:18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
710:15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
691:14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
662:14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
650:13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
633:13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
616:10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
598:08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
574:06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
559:06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
534:05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
522:05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
505:04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
475:04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
463:04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
443:04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
416:04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
395:03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
383:02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
371:02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
354:01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
342:00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
325:23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
312:22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
289:22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
280:22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
260:21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
235:"Failure to warn vandals"
227:20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
200:20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
183:19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
163:16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
137:16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
125:09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
108:16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
95:09:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2413:Please do not modify it.
871:- give him his own mop!
1705:per warnings, sorry. -
1452:Mildishly strong oppose
39:Please do not modify it
2168:Distinct pages edited
2038:Sam Vimes' edit count
1998:User's lst 5000 edits.
1504:my different standards
134:Lord Havelock Vetinari
2382:not covered on policy
2136:Knowledge (XXG) talk
1791:featured in June 2005
1274:Major contributor to
669:, do warn vandals. --
638:Bloody Strong Support
34:request for adminship
1335:per SCZenz and JzG.
77:previously nominated
2260:WikiProject Cricket
421:Very Strong support
85:WikiProject Cricket
568:Christopher Parham
547:in the first place
2389:
2338:Darryl Strawberry
2313:Optional question
2175:
2174:
2042:Interiot's tool 2
1723:
784:
648:
631:
556:
529:as per Dmcdevit.
225:
212:
141:
79:for adminship by
2443:
2415:
2385:
2188:
2182:
2128:Knowledge (XXG)
2035:
2009:
2006:
2003:
1986:
1984:
1979:
1951:
1946:
1926:Opabinia regalis
1844:
1838:
1835:
1711:
1677:
1623:
1620:
1614:
1524:
1515:
1509:
1477:Have your say!!!
1461:
1443:
1428:
1406:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1267:
1250:
1216:
1140:
1123:
1052:
1042:
1015:
1010:
915:
849:
774:
768:
753:Opabinia regalis
723:
707:
702:
686:
644:
627:
595:
589:
586:
554:
497:
492:
487:
440:Have your say!!!
335:Opabinia regalis
306:
296:Opabinia regalis
274:
256:
251:
246:
215:
210:
197:
194:
161:
158:
151:
139:
41:
2451:
2450:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2418:this nomination
2411:
2186:
2180:
2018:
2007:
2004:
2001:
1982:
1977:
1975:
1944:
1942:
1941:months time. --
1842:
1836:
1833:
1675:
1618:
1612:
1610:
1599:
1557:my RfA criteria
1522:
1513:
1507:
1459:
1439:
1424:
1402:
1348:
1343:
1338:
1263:
1248:
1214:
1138:
1119:
1046:
1040:
1013:
1008:
911:
847:
764:
721:
705:
700:
689:
684:
593:
587:
584:
566:, no problems.
495:
490:
485:
304:
272:
254:
249:
244:
195:
192:
156:
153:
149:
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2449:
2447:
2439:
2438:
2428:
2427:
2423:
2422:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2358:
2355:
2352:
2346:
2315:from Gwernol:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2220:administrators
2205:
2204:
2200:
2199:
2173:
2172:
2169:
2165:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2153:
2149:
2148:
2145:
2141:
2140:
2137:
2133:
2132:
2129:
2125:
2124:
2121:
2117:
2116:
2113:
2112:Template talk
2109:
2108:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2085:
2084:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2073:
2069:
2068:
2065:
2061:
2060:
2057:
2053:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2039:
2033:
2032:
2030:
2027:Mathbot's tool
2016:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1990:
1969:
1957:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1910:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1880:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1764:
1752:
1739:
1727:
1700:
1683:
1660:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1604:
1593:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1497:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1414:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1330:
1318:
1306:
1289:
1272:
1256:
1241:
1224:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1193:Strong Support
1175:
1148:Strong Support
1145:
1131:Strong Support
1128:
1112:
1100:
1088:
1069:
1057:
1032:
1021:
1000:
988:
960:
942:
932:
920:
909:unconvincing.
900:
880:
866:
854:
837:
825:
813:
801:
789:
758:
747:(changed from
742:
732:Strong support
729:
712:
693:
673:
664:
652:
635:
625:badlydrawnjeff
618:
600:
576:
561:
536:
524:
507:
477:
465:
445:
418:
400:Strong support
397:
385:
373:
368:Adambiswanger1
356:
344:
327:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
262:
229:
202:
185:
169:Strong Support
165:
142:
127:
114:
113:
110:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2448:
2437:
2434:
2433:
2431:
2421:
2419:
2414:
2408:
2407:
2402:
2399:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2388:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:DriniQuestion
2366:
2363:
2359:
2356:
2353:
2350:
2349:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2332:
2331:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2314:
2306:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2292:
2291:
2289:
2286:
2285:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2254:
2253:
2251:
2248:
2247:
2242:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2228:
2227:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2202:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2192:
2185:
2177:
2176:
2170:
2167:
2166:
2162:
2159:
2158:
2154:
2151:
2150:
2146:
2143:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2130:
2127:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2095:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2071:
2070:
2066:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2055:
2054:
2050:
2047:
2046:
2043:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2031:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2014:
2011:
2010:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1985:
1980:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1950:
1947:
1939:
1936:
1935:
1930:
1927:
1922:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1907:
1902:
1899:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1889:
1884:
1881:
1879:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1845:
1840:
1839:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1775:
1772:
1768:
1765:
1763:
1760:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1748:
1743:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1731:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1709:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1678:
1673:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1621:
1615:
1608:
1605:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1520:
1512:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1434:If Sam reads
1433:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1245:
1242:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1044:
1043:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1004:
1001:
999:
996:
992:
989:
987:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
961:
959:
956:
955:
952:
951:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
924:
921:
919:
916:
914:
908:
904:
901:
899:
896:
892:
888:
884:
881:
879:
876:
874:
870:
867:
865:
862:
858:
855:
853:
850:
845:
841:
838:
836:
833:
829:
826:
824:
821:
817:
814:
812:
809:
805:
802:
800:
797:
793:
790:
788:
783:
780:
777:
772:
769:
767:
762:
759:
757:
754:
750:
746:
743:
741:
738:
733:
730:
728:
725:
716:
713:
711:
708:
703:
697:
694:
692:
687:
681:
677:
672:
668:
665:
663:
660:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
617:
614:
610:
609:
604:
601:
599:
596:
591:
590:
580:
577:
575:
572:
569:
565:
562:
560:
557:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
535:
532:
528:
525:
523:
519:
515:
511:
508:
506:
503:
502:
499:
498:
493:
488:
481:
478:
476:
473:
469:
466:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
441:
437:
436:
430:
426:
422:
419:
417:
414:
410:
405:
401:
398:
396:
393:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
365:
360:
357:
355:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
336:
331:
328:
326:
323:
320:Per above. --
319:
313:
310:
307:
302:
297:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
281:
278:
275:
270:
266:
263:
261:
258:
257:
252:
247:
241:
236:
233:
230:
228:
223:
219:
214:
206:
203:
201:
198:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
175:
171:
170:
166:
164:
159:
152:
146:
143:
138:
135:
131:
128:
126:
123:
120:
116:
115:
111:
109:
106:
102:
99:
98:
97:
96:
93:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
59:
56:
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2412:
2409:
2381:
2374:
2373:
2333:
2330:}}? Thanks.
2319:
2312:
2311:
2293:
2287:
2255:
2249:
2229:
2211:
2206:
2152:Portal talk
1999:
1997:
1971:
1959:
1937:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1882:
1870:
1831:
1766:
1754:
1741:
1729:
1708:CrazyRussian
1706:
1702:
1690:Ambuj Saxena
1685:
1670:
1662:
1650:
1630:
1629:
1606:
1595:
1585:
1552:
1536:
1499:
1486:
1470:
1451:
1416:
1403:
1393:
1365:
1336:
1333:Weak support
1332:
1321:Weak support
1320:
1308:
1291:
1279:
1275:
1265:Mr. Turcotte
1264:
1258:
1243:
1226:
1206:
1197:Snottygobble
1192:
1184:Snottygobble
1178:
1177:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1130:
1120:
1114:
1102:
1090:
1071:
1059:
1045:
1039:
1034:
1006:
1003:Full support
1002:
990:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
953:
949:
944:
922:
912:
906:
902:
882:
868:
859:, good guy.
856:
839:
828:Full support
827:
816:Weak support
815:
803:
791:
765:
748:
744:
731:
714:
695:
666:
654:
637:
620:
613:Lord Deskana
607:
606:
602:
582:
578:
563:
546:
538:
526:
509:
500:
483:
479:
467:
451:
447:
433:
420:
399:
387:
375:
363:
358:
346:
329:
264:
242:
234:
231:
204:
187:
180:
174:Weak Support
173:
172:Changing to
168:
167:
144:
129:
100:
69:
61:
57:
54:
53:
38:
30:
28:
2096:Image talk
2051:# of Edits
1919:Changed to
1771:Diablo Test
1730:Weak Oppose
1686:Weak oppose
1663:Weak oppose
1651:Weak oppose
1636:Sarah Ewart
1487:Week Oppose
1456:Computerjoe
1417:Weak oppose
1366:Weak oppose
1296:Sarah Ewart
1191:Changed to
1157:in spite of
1062:per above.
671:Terence Ong
605:but please
349:per above.
117:Nominator.
2080:User talk
1964:Eluchil404
1789:, and was
1759:TigerShark
1613:Aguerriero
1313:Patman2648
1161:because of
1121:Alphachimp
1095:Gurubrahma
1064:Nevermind2
887:DarthVader
472:The Nation
103:I accept.
31:successful
2398:Sam Vimes
2362:Sam Vimes
2302:Sam Vimes
2276:Sam Vimes
2238:Sam Vimes
2120:Category
2104:Template
2048:Namespace
2023:Sam Vimes
1795:Sam Vimes
1783:The Ashes
1672:digital_m
1590:RandyWang
1576:Petros471
1561:Petros471
1543:rant-line
1370:Kimchi.sg
1284:Guettarda
907:extremely
832:Thryduulf
771:rovingian
724:you know?
720:Just zis
551:Sjakkalle
531:Pete.Hurd
380:abakharev
351:SushiGeek
286:Petros471
105:Sam Vimes
81:Thryduulf
63:Sam Vimes
49:Sam Vimes
2430:Category
2272:Heggedal
2222:and the
1994:Comments
1983:of Kings
1978:The King
1898:Sam Korn
1785:, which
1769:. Fails
1734:Roy A.A.
1717:contribs
1538:Blnguyen
1502:, given
1472:Blnguyen
1380:Dmcdevit
1153:48 Hours
1135:FloNight
1083:(Review)
995:Delirium
927:Carnildo
895:Agent 86
891:Blnguyen
737:Sam Korn
701:=Nichalp
680:contribs
555:(Check!)
543:Heggedal
456:Dmcdevit
452:judgment
435:Blnguyen
301:DarthVad
269:DarthVad
222:contribs
188:Support.
73:contribs
2345:number)
2326:}}...{{
2144:Portal
2056:(main)
1972:Neutral
1960:Neutral
1949:iva1979
1938:Neutral
1921:Support
1916:Neutral
1909:Neutral
1888:Cynical
1492:Yanksox
1460:'s talk
1309:Support
1292:Support
1280:support
1276:content
1259:Support
1251:iggurat
1244:Support
1227:Support
1207:Support
1179:Support
1165:Deville
1115:Support
1103:Support
1091:Support
1072:Support
1060:Support
1035:Support
991:Support
979:opposes
975:support
971:neutral
963:Support
945:Support
935:Jaranda
923:Support
903:Support
883:Support
869:Support
857:Support
840:Support
804:Support
792:Support
749:Neutral
745:Support
715:Support
706:«Talk»=
696:Support
667:Support
655:Support
621:Support
603:Support
579:Support
564:Support
539:Support
527:Support
510:Support
496:gerthat
480:Support
468:Support
448:Support
429:WT:CRIC
388:Support
376:Support
359:Support
347:Support
330:Support
322:Rory096
265:Support
232:Support
211:Charles
205:Support
178:Srikeit
150:Ganeshk
145:Support
130:Support
112:Support
2194:(Talk)
2163:11432
2160:Total
2088:Image
1883:Oppose
1871:Oppose
1843:(Talk)
1767:Oppose
1755:Oppose
1742:Oppose
1703:Oppose
1667:Tawker
1655:Tawker
1631:Oppose
1607:Oppose
1586:Oppose
1571:WP:AIV
1553:Oppose
1519:joturn
1500:Oppose
1436:WP:VAN
1394:Oppose
1360:Oppose
1325:SCZenz
1282:ing.
1211:Tangot
1107:Johnlp
1077:Goldom
861:Martin
820:Draeco
808:BryanG
796:Jusjih
642:Hiding
594:(Talk)
571:(talk)
514:Tintin
392:rogerd
339:feydey
213:Parker
193:Kungfu
122:(Talk)
92:(Talk)
2387:Drini
2328:test4
2324:test1
2191:ALoan
2171:3675
2072:User
2064:Talk
2059:8990
2002:Voice
1875:moink
1837:eagle
1834:Noble
1807:Anwar
1774:Anwar
1747:Xoloz
1721:email
1596:rants
1441:Andeh
1426:Andeh
1049:Reply
1024:Kusma
967:silly
950:Gizza
913:Grue
844:Madd4
659:BigDT
588:eagle
585:Noble
255:DVERS
119:ALoan
89:ALoan
55:Final
16:<
2342:this
2184:test
2139:266
2131:480
2107:110
2083:405
2075:681
2067:355
2021:See
2005:-of-
1857:talk
1822:talk
1713:talk
1694:talk
1665:per
1640:Talk
1619:talk
1511:test
1421:Wisd
1419:per
1399:Wisd
1349:cιτγ
1300:Talk
1235:talk
1169:Talk
1139:talk
1027:(討論)
889:and
676:talk
646:Talk
629:talk
518:talk
413:talk
218:talk
209:Hugh
196:Adam
157:talk
67:talk
2155:17
2147:17
2123:67
2115:33
2008:All
1853:I@n
1818:I@n
1669:.--
1409:n17
1339:Λυδ
1231:JPD
1219:ngo
1080:(t)
1041:Jay
1014:ert
1009:Rob
983:Joe
848:Max
722:Guy
685:ESP
409:I@n
364:too
2432::
2334:A:
2320:4.
2294:A:
2288:3.
2256:A:
2250:2.
2230:A:
2226:.
2212:1.
2187:}}
2181:{{
2099:2
2091:9
1855:≡
1820:≡
1793:.
1696:)
1642:)
1600:)
1592:(/
1541:|
1514:}}
1508:{{
1475:|
1302:)
1237:)
1171:)
893:.
785:}
682:|
678:|
608:do
520:)
454:.
438:|
411:≡
240:➨
220:-
190:--
36:.
2029:.
1945:S
1719:/
1715:/
1692:(
1676:e
1638:(
1622:)
1616:(
1527:r
1523:e
1404:e
1384:t
1382:·
1344:α
1298:(
1249:Z
1233:(
1215:a
1167:(
1075:-
1051:)
1047:(
782:@
779:C
776:T
773:{
766:e
761:M
688:)
674:(
516:(
491:o
486:R
460:t
458:·
309:r
305:e
277:r
273:e
250:Є
245:Я
224:)
216:(
160:)
154:(
70:·
65:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.