2689:
opposed for adminship is hardly anything people should ever get upset over. Were someone to ever hope to persuade me to change my mind or to convince me that the candidate will be fair, I am always open to friendly discussion, but the snide remark I linked to above are not what accomplishes such a decision, especially when I am incredibly unlikely to ever make as an initial oppose vote a commentary on someone's support vote. Imagine if I went through challenging all of the support votes! If editors want to support or oppose a candidate, the votes of others in those discussions should not concern them. So, no, I am still not convinced of the candidate's reasoning in certain discussions regarding article inclusion, although I encourage her to continue to fight vandalism and hopefully help build articles. Sincerely, --
93:, admin talk pages, or otherwise, she has proven to be a strong resource protecting the project, and will be greatly helped in this endeavor with the admin tools. Seraphim has contributed to the project in many other ways as well. She has submitted a number of images, and understands our free and fair use image policies—another area in which she can help the project. She has contributed at various AfD's, demonstrating an understanding of that process as well. Lastly, but certainly not leastly, she is admirably civil, actually, downright friendly, a pleasure to work with, and an example of how editors should behave. I think she would make a wonderful admin, one who would defend the project in a manner that is polite, respectful, but firm, and I am honored to submit her name for adminship. --
498:: I assume you mean how would I have closed the debate at that revision? Although a large quantity of the keep votes did not provide a reason to keep that was founded in policy, one person did make an excellent comment and provided a source, "a real-world notability argument could be made, since so much of the pre-release publicity for Deathly Hallows focused on the question of who will die" -- Josiah Rowe. Despite this, the information he provided could easily have been merged more appropriately into the main article and balanced against a greater consenus to delete (where many delete rationales were based on multiple policies), I would have deleted.
1576:- Her responsible and conscientious edits have led several to believe she was an admin already, which is always a good sign. I looked through the arbitration below, and I see nothing to indicate that she would not be a good admin. Prolific vandal-fighter, good humored, civil in all the interactions I've seen, and excellent answers to the questions above. I was happy to see her mention the 3RR block, and her actions and edits since then indicate that she's learned from it. That's the ultimate goal of a block anyway. I can't say enough good things about this editor and I'm honored to support her for adminship.
2590:
backed by consensus and as such, enforceable. Saying that she will stand by current consensus on the matter only confirms your bias on the matter. In any case, her edits do not indicate that she will not be circumspect with her usage of the tools, and thus use them to back up her own viewpoints on the matter. As for the block, it was nearly a year ago, and her subsequent action demonstrates it can be safely disregarded. Despite this, I feel further discussion here will lead to a train of thought that will ultimately become not relevant to this RfA, and I will halt here.
2828:
don't think I've ever referred to any of wikipedia's content as "crap" and I have never been a member of a deletionist group. In regards to the afd mentioned above, although we may have arrived at the same decision, the reasons why I decided to delete are detailed above and differ quite alot from the closer's rationale. Even if our views differ and you feel like you can't support me, that's absolutely fine; I'm appreciative of the time you have taken to comment. I would also like to extend that thanks to everyone who has commented :).
2801:). My concern with the views expressed with regard to the episodes and characters dispute is that if we keep the articles, we have the possibility of eventual improvement to them and anyone who does not like the articles can still work on what they like with no problems. If we delete the articles, we make it that much harder to restore and improve them when they do exist and maybe even end up turning away some of our readers and contributors. With regards to your answer to the question pertaining to the closure of
2814:
take such a closer as this one as being clearly unbiased. Thus, just because an AfD closed a certain way does not necessarily reflect the "right" decision. Otherwise, we would not have
Deletion Review. I do see, however, that you do not just vote delete and are willing to express keep arguments, which I will take into consideration as this RfA progresses. If nothing else, considering the current tally, I don't think you have to worry about this RfA not ultimately going your way. Best, --
2606:
that there is widespread difference of opinions and lack of consensus regading the interpretation of these policies. If she will be fair and not close AfDs based on her personal opinion or if say she does not plan to focus on AfDs at all, but instead will work on vandal fighting, then I do not oppose her in that regard and would be willing to overlook the block. But it is of the utmost importance to me that no editors feel discouraged from contributing to
1464:, of course, given that I offered her my nomination (which apparently seems to be just a few hours before someone actually created this page, that certainly meant more than just coincidence!) I've encountered Seraph here and there, and though our viewpoints almost always differ, I've always found her to be nothing if not shrewd, patient and kind. Excellent candidate. --
1736:. I thought she already was one, and not just because she has a similar name to Seraphimblade. Seems like a pretty good editor, although I would be cautious with so flippantly dismissing large amounts of sock-puppetry evidence (i.e. Jack Merridew--see diff in oppose section below) when this information is presented by a long-term and respected contributor.
110:- I am sincerely pleased to present Seraphim Whipp up for your approval for the administrative tools. I have now crossed paths with her on many occasions and I am consistently impressed with Whipp's (which is being used as an alternative for convenience) demeanour, knowledge, diligence, clue and overall grace - on par with
270:
putting it behind you is vital. Also if it's viable, make amends with the person you were in a dispute with. Generally speaking, if I find a situation stressful, I just try to stay calm and logical. I won't click “save page” unless I'm sure that that what I've said is civil. In the future, I would maintain this response.
1411:
coverage of fiction, I accept her answer that she would not be biased and where she had an opinion she would participate in the AfD. I have found her to be an editor of integrity, who abides by her word. I had previously hinted at nominating her myself. I think Ms. Whipp would make a fine addition.
2704:
It seems there is an increasing trend for supporters' comments to influence the RfA negatively! XD Grand Roi, my comment was not sarcastic. Something I make a point to do in my comments is address the opposition if I am supporting. I was indicating that the opposing comment (in this case, yours) does
2827:
Although there is no way that this can be verified, I did make a point to myself to answer
Sceptre's question before reading the closer's rationale, so my answer would be unaffected by the original closer. I would like to ask not to be judged by other people's behaviour. I haven't been sarcastic. I
2610:
due to having their good faith articles deleted or that editors are prevented from building articles, because a handful of other editors do not like those articles. The opinions expressed in the ArbCom and RfC seem to fall on the side of a minority opinion that has been exclusive to other editors'
2605:
It is the interpretation of policies that does not sit well with me. As being an admin is "no big deal", then opposing someone who wants to be an admin, because I am not confident in her interpretation of the policies is also "no big deal." The fact that we have RfCs and ArbCom cases demonstrates
2813:
who in a now deleted version of his current userpage, which I unfortuantely can no longer link to, claimed that he in effect after leaving the project under a previous username wants to be an admin again under a new username "to delete crap", i.e. what he feels is "crap." I would therefore hardly
2688:
I am not confident in the candidate's objectivity with regards to article inclusion based on her participation concerning the episode and character debate. I am always open-minded to fair and polite discussion about differences of opinion and again if being an admin is "not a big deal" than being
269:
I've been in few conflicts in my time here. In my first months here I was blocked for 3RR. It's a year on from that dispute and whilst I deeply regret that incident and the way I behaved, I think it was the most valuable lesson in civility. I believe that gaining knowledge from a conflict and then
2589:
not policy? All of her arguments are derived from the aforementioned pair, and simply dismissing them as a weak argument does nothing other than to show an inclusionist bias on your part. The fact that we have RfCs and recent ArbCom cases does not change the fact that both policies are currently
88:
for adminship. Seraphim has been a wikipedia editor since the end of
January 2007, and in her 13 months with wikipedia has amassed over 7500 edits spanning almost every area of wikipedia. Seraphim is a committed vandal fighter; my first interactions with her related to performing range blocks to
1410:
First, I agree that the fact that she learned from her previous block is a plus. Second, Ms. Whipp has always been polite and thoughtful in her reponses to me. She has a good handle on civility, even in difficult situation. Third, although I do not share her precise view when it comes to our
456:
Citrouilles. I do stand by those views provided but I will point out that I have neither an inclusionist nor deletionist stance and even if I did, it would have absolutely no weight on how I interpret consensus in closing afds. If I had an opinion, I would participate in that afd and not close.
250:, which I expanded fivefold for DYK and got to GA status. I've also mediated a few disputes and I think those contributions are very worthwhile because I'm contributing towards a peaceful and harmonious environment. I think mediation also allows me to learn lessons from other people's disputes.
455:
There is lots of evidence to show that TTN and other parties have not acted collaboratively and the sanctions given have been based on that. I haven't been party to the editing of tv episodes but have contributed to working out a consensus, such as in the diffs provided by Le Grand Roi des
126:
confident about the process that she has processed them through, applying the correct level of warning, user is active now etc. I am mostly in agreement with
Avraham here, because to be honest, he puts it best. I have recognised her importance as an important mainspace contributor and a
1262:
the reasoning and was back to work almost immediately after it expired. In other words, she displayed characteristics vital to a successful admin--a willingness to engage in difficult conflicts as well as an ability to recognize and learn from one's mistakes--nearly a
2638:
I generally don't hold blocks against a candidate forever. 6 months is long enough to see if the lesson took. Candidate says that it was a valuable lesson. I can't oppose over it. Maybe they'll think twice before blocking someone-- be less likely to misuse the button.
2802:
118:. She has improved the average edits per month recently and has become more involved and enthusiastic about the project as a whole, with a sincere regard for what the community stands for. Her overall character is encouraging and as for the reports made to
446:
1559:. Looks like one of the best candidates recently. Meets all my standards, and is fantastically involved. LeRoi has the right to his opinion, and I understand his concern, but on the overwhelming balance, this user should become a sysop.
2530:
backed by consensus (if they were, there would not be the ArbCom case, Request for
Comment, and other divisive discussions). I cannot support someone to have deletion tools who seems overly exclusive on a contentious matter. The
985:. After reviewing Seraphim.'s contributions, I'm confident that she is an ideal candidate for adminship, and that the project as a whole will benefit from her being mopped. To that end, I am happy to offer my support—best of luck!
480:. As of that revision, there was an even split in numbers of those in favour of keeping the article and those in favour of deleting it. How, though, would you close the AFD, and why? (For reference, the AFD closed as
2749:
You are welcome and thank you for the kind response. And as an aside, just because I do not support the candidate as an admin, because of our disagreement over the value of episode and character articles, that does
2792:
I could buy it just being a matter of standards from
Seresin if it were not for not being the only time I opposed a candidate recently and he made it a point to comment on the opposers' stances (see, for example,
1250:- Easy call here. As far as the block mentioned below goes, I looked back at what happened and found that it actually bolstered my reasons for supporting. Essentially, Seraphim called out an administrator for a
402:? I thought it was you (renamed) and I was throughly surprised to see you at RfA? A coincidence perhaps (just wanting to clarify, and frankly a few laughs never hurt (except the ribs, if you laugh too hard :D ))
2779:. I can't see that Seresin's vote seems sarcastic. My interpretation of it is, "the concerns raised by the opposing editor are not ones that would stop me from supporting". Everyone's standard's are different.
203:
and so take part in some admin work already, such as closing AfD's and MfD's; having the technical ability to delete a page will be extremely useful. I also intend to put the tools to good use at
127:
vandal-fighter, with the term taking on a new definition here. I too, am honoured to submit my 12th candidate for consideration and am in eager anticipation for the outcome of this RFA. Regards,
412:
is an angel, (Seraphim being the plural) whilst the word Whipp can be seen as an alternate spelling of Whip, which is a weapon. The second part of
Seraphimblade's name is also...a weapon!
2954:
1387:
not thrilled about edits highlighted below in the whole TV episode arbcom, but I am happy to see article writing, which is the best way to see things from the 'article creator' POV.
577:
186:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1974:. I am sure than many very reliable and experienced editors on Knowledge (XXG) have a block somewhere in their past. A fantastic editor, who has no doubt reformed. Two thumbs up.
1785:- appears to be a good editor! While I can't say that I have crossed paths on many occasions, I have seen this editor at work, and see no reason why they should abuse the tools.
2566:
If it was a block that the blocking admin later unblocked, then I think it would be invalidated. Most admins that I have encountered have never been blocked before. Best, --
218:, I feel confident that I could put admin tools to good use in those places. I also deal with images so I hope to be a useful resource over there. There are also areas like
2315:
263:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
2511:
Her arguments are weak because they're backed by consensus and policy? Forgive me, but an oppose based on divergent views on such a subject seems inappropriate.
1181:
617:
296:
2611:
contributions and that is where my concern lies. We need to make sure that we err on the side of being inclusive of our contributors and their work. Best, --
1190:
1267:
before trying to get the tools herself. That's as clear a sign of her quality as an editor now and her potential ability as an admin as I could ask for. --
367:
I would enter myself into that category because I believe it promotes accountability. I am very responsive to criticism or advice given and value it highly.
604:
2972:
144:- I was going to nominate her myself in a few weeks. I can't really say anything bad about the candidate - she's commited to vandalwhacking, she's got
899:: I've seen good things from this user. I don't see any reason for concern, and I think she'll do good work with the tools. Keep up the good work.
611:
1341:
Excellent editing, shows evidence of working well during disputes and thinking before acting - all things I love to see in an admin candidate.
2674:
Your prerogative, but are you saying that you are, in effect, voting against a candidate because of the comments of one of her supporters? --
647:
641:
408::D. Nope, no relation to Seraphimblade. There are specific reasons why I chose my username, so I was surprised to see such a similar name! A
2735:
Fair enough; thank you for taking the time and having the patience to explain your reasoning, and thanks for taking part in the process! --
943:
664:
597:
81:
2312:
out and out vandalism and
Seraphim Whipp states that she has learned from the situation. In the end I have no problems with supporting.
152:
if she gets the tools, like she does now, and with a massive air of civility that is normally mutually exclusive with cluebatting users.
2319:
253:
Finally, reverting vandalism, welcoming users and helping to mentor new editors are also among the contributions I've made that I value.
33:
17:
2754:
mean that I feel any ill will toward her or that I hope any interactions we have in the future would not be respectful. Sincerely, --
573:
2917:
2843:
2816:
2756:
2722:
2691:
2663:
2613:
2568:
2537:
2500:
2050:
1172:
287:
2805:, even if AfDs are not votes that so many editors would argue in good faith that the article is worthwhile to keep suggests a no
1774:
1653:
831:
1258:
for re-adding her comment multiple times after the admin removed it. She contested the block on her talk page, but eventually
1398:
1276:
803:
1232:
I am enthused to support
Seraphim Whipp. She is an excellent editor. The oppose rationale does not concern me in the least.
1377:
1070:
968:
242:
In terms of content, I would say that some of the renovations to album articles are among my best contributions, such as
200:
2328:
2273:
1163:
709:
278:
133:
2841:
Well, I appreciate the polite reply and so will at least change from an "Oppose" to a "Weak oppose" for now. Best, --
1882:
1649:
1516:
376:
246:, which I initially speedied for lack of context. The article I consider the best of my contributions is the article,
2771:
2398:
2809:, because a good deal of editors had not come to a "general agreement". Note that the discussion was closed by a
2777:
2449:- Absolutely. The block was a long time ago. Great answers, excellent editor with more than enough experience. -
2774:
951:
2896:
2834:
2785:
2196:
1756:
1371:
962:
938:
591:
504:
418:
173:
148:, has an extensive knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and overall, I am utterly convinced that she will
75:
1162:
Nice experience, with almost 3500 edits to the mainspace, and 100% edit summary usage. I don't see why not? -
1129:
Though I am slightly concerned about the block for 3RR, this user has no other concerns and deserves the mop.
2939:
2923:
2898:
2882:
2849:
2836:
2822:
2787:
2762:
2744:
2728:
2715:
2697:
2683:
2669:
2652:
2645:
2619:
2600:
2574:
2561:
2554:
2543:
2521:
2506:
2458:
2441:
2423:
2402:
2385:
2363:
2348:
2332:
2324:
2300:
2283:
2260:
2237:
2223:
2200:
2182:
2160:
2143:
2131:
2114:
2102:
2078:
2057:
2027:
2010:
1993:
1966:
1949:
1935:
1909:
1893:
1872:
1851:
1835:
1818:
1798:
1777:
1758:
1745:
1728:
1709:
1692:
1669:
1657:
1640:
1612:
1590:
1568:
1551:
1532:
1505:
1496:
1487:
1473:
1456:
1432:
1420:
1402:
1379:
1364:
1345:
1333:
1311:
1290:
1242:
1227:
1208:
1154:
1133:
1121:
1109:
1095:
1078:
1049:
1034:
1027:
1013:
996:
977:
955:
922:
905:
891:
874:
857:
836:
809:
775:
752:
734:
725:
712:
698:
506:
490:
420:
175:
158:
136:
102:
65:
2231:. A recent situation demonstrated that Seraphim understands the necessity of communication and discussion.
2768:
2253:
1741:
747:
2661:
support that prevent me from feeling comfortable to allowing for a weak oppose or neutral vote. Best, --
2394:
2043:
1924:
1502:
1148:
1091:
887:
2953:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2640:
2549:
1022:
870:
660:
1021:
meets my standards. Talk page has a calm, patient, helpful response to pressure. Trust the nominators.
2935:
2380:
2023:
1831:
1770:
1766:
1705:
1688:
1416:
1329:
1104:
434:
1609:
1599:
2891:
2829:
2780:
2232:
2192:
2127:
2074:
1984:
1944:
1905:
1751:
1604:
1585:
1482:
1307:
933:
883:
784:
587:
569:
499:
413:
168:
85:
71:
60:
1454:
866:
219:
2592:
2513:
2006:
1547:
1540:- Good candidate. :-) Guess what? I only started editing Knowledge (XXG) 5 days before yourself!
1429:
1392:
1283:
1200:
918:
793:
704:
399:
128:
1317:
1299:
347:
A block is where a technical restriction is placed and the ability of editor to edit is removed.
322:. Cool down blocks cause the opposite of what they are intended for as they inflame a situation.
319:
338:
A ban revokes an editor's right to edit and is imposed either by Arbcom or community consensus.
2767:
These are my most recent comments in xfd. In each, the vote I gave was the same as the result
2740:
2711:
2705:
not concern me enough to oppose Seraphim Whipp. There was no sarcasm in the statement at all.
2679:
2454:
2296:
2246:
1796:
1737:
1723:
1564:
1469:
1342:
1321:
1238:
741:
694:
98:
215:
211:
2803:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
2357:
2278:
2178:
2174:
2036:
1929:
1866:
1859:
I don't like the block, but it was almost a year ago, and the editor seems to have matured.
1633:
1220:
1144:
1088:
1009:
992:
767:
247:
145:
2586:
2066:
1428:— no concern about misuse of buttons; I actually thought she was an admin already. Cheers,
1355:
1255:
817:- Consistent contributions to articles, vandal fighting, ANI, etc. Looks trustworthy, too.
468:
358:
204:
119:
90:
2931:
2411:
2372:
2341:
2156:
2019:
1827:
1701:
1678:
1666:
1523:
1412:
1325:
1043:
851:
818:
430:
383:
2873:
I'll go into the minority and voice an oppose, because I just feel rubbed the wrong way.
1750:
I've dropped a comment on the talk page that explains my reasoning in that situation :).
2498:, i.e. too exclusionary. Seems like a prolific vandalism fighter though. Sincerely, --
2930:
I will weigh in as neutral, for now. I am curious about her response to my question.
2878:
2432:
2123:
2070:
1977:
1898:
1808:
1578:
1303:
731:
111:
55:
2915:. Switching to neutral since she was nice to me and Seresin clarified. Sincerely, --
2582:
2966:
2810:
2002:
1962:
1887:
1542:
1493:
1441:
1388:
1360:
1268:
914:
901:
2736:
2707:
2675:
2450:
2292:
2217:
2111:
1845:
1786:
1715:
1560:
1465:
1234:
1130:
1118:
1063:
1057:
822:
721:
690:
486:
464:
154:
94:
2065:
a recent encounter with Seraphim_Whipp at WP:AIV demonstrated her willingness to
1902:
2268:
2170:
2087:
1919:
1861:
1622:
1217:
1005:
761:
243:
2526:
They are weak because they are overly exclusionary and involve items that are
2152:
2140:
1665:- I must say the 20 against 1 battle in the oppose section is pretty amusing.
1510:
Oh my... even the end of the name is weapon, this is such a blatant sock. ;-)
1042:
very worthy candidate who has been ready for this role for quite some time. ~
846:
226:
that I'd work on after gaining a bit more experience by watching other admins.
115:
2947:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2069:
with an anon user who was reported there, but might likely be just confused.
783:- Absolutely. Meets my criteria of balance and versatility almost perfectly.
2874:
2806:
1958:
1481:
Terrific vandal fighter, shows great judgement, no outstanding concerns.
1117:- looking forward to you having the tools and continuing your good work.
986:
1917:
all friendly, experient, trustworthy users who can't stand rap/hip hop.
1806:
per nominations and no indication the user will not make a great admin.
1166:
281:
2210:
1184:
1175:
299:
290:
201:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions
2957:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1316:
Excellent mediaton skills in my only interaction with her (requested
549:
409:
223:
2657:
I am willing to forgive one block, but I am somewhat turned off by
663:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
548:
Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit
199:
As an editor in good standing, I follow the process set out at
2797:) beginning with my opposition to his own RfA (see his stance
236:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?
165:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
2720:
Okay, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Best, --
2535:
for revert warring is also cause for concern. Sincerely, --
1302:, nothing to suggest they will abuse or misuse the tools.
522:
Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?
913:
Looked at some contributions and can't see any problems.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1198:- very deserving of the tools. Will use the tools well.
2887:
2798:
2794:
2658:
2532:
2496:
2493:
2490:
2487:
2484:
2481:
2018:
definately a case where the nominators played a factor.
1259:
1251:
635:
629:
623:
477:
2308:. The only issue I had was the block, however it was
844:good editor; I thought she was already an admin.
739:Excellent contributor and will use the tools well.
447:
Requests for arbitration: Episodes and characters 2
207:, although I might be a bit slow at it at first :).
1440:: I don't think I have to explain my rationale. ·
1254:, took it to their talk page, and was blocked per
332:What is the difference between a ban and a block?
445:What is your opinion of the proposed decision in
2890:would be the comment that you are referring to?
740:
449:and what do you anticipate your response to be?
2169:anyone nominated by this particular nominator.
193:What admin work do you intend to take part in?
122:- it has now got to the point where we can be
89:cover recidivist banned trolls. Be it through
2480:per weak arguments made in arbitration case:
8:
2548:Hmm. The block was more than 10 months ago.
1826:Solid editor and good record re: vandalism.
2208:, she's very helpful and looks reasonable.
2191:, per answers to Majorly's questions. ;~)
2371:. Good editor, she will be a good admin.
1843:Excellent vandal fighter, good contribs.
318:Never :), that's specifically defined at
312:When should you apply a cool-down block?
2431:. WP:90's not WP:100, but close enough.
2122:, I thought she was an admin already...
659:Please keep discussion constructive and
84:) - I am honored to be able to nominate
53:Final (91/1/1); Closed as successful by
2916:
2842:
2815:
2755:
2721:
2690:
2662:
2612:
2567:
2536:
2499:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
7:
665:Special:Contributions/Seraphim Whipp
24:
2973:Successful requests for adminship
1677:Good user, will be a good admin.
1221:
1058:Well, my metasense ain't tingling
960:Per Q2 - excellent article work.
2139:. Don't see any current issues.
2646:
2641:
2555:
2550:
1888:
1883:
1809:
1064:
1028:
1023:
796:
786:
210:After watching the activity at
2892:
2830:
2781:
2591:
2512:
1752:
1199:
576:. For the edit count, see the
500:
414:
169:
1:
2381:
2377:
2373:
882:good contribs...good luck! --
820:
469:Articles for deletion process
2919:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2845:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2818:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2758:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2724:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2693:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2665:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2615:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2593:
2570:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2539:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2514:
2502:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
2001:Fine to me, minor concerns.
1579:
1201:
1141:. No problem. Good luck.
1071:
572:'s edit summary usage with
467:regarding consensus in the
182:Questions for the candidate
2989:
2899:02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2883:02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2459:20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2442:17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2424:14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2403:11:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2386:07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2364:05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2349:00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2333:00:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2301:10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2284:09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2261:01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1086:- she deserves it :) ...--
585:Links for Seraphim Whipp:
357:Would you add yourself to
277:Optional Questions from -
66:21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2940:06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2924:00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2850:20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2837:19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2823:19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2788:17:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2763:04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2745:04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2729:00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2716:00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2698:04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2684:04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2670:03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2653:02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2620:01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2601:01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2575:01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2562:01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2544:01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2522:01:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2507:23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2238:23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2224:21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2201:16:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2183:11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2161:06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2144:04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2132:22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2115:19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2103:18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2079:14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2058:08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2028:07:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2011:00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
1994:15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1967:13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1957:. Sensible and reliable.
1950:01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1936:01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
1910:23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1894:22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1873:21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1852:21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1836:19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1819:19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1799:18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1778:16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1759:16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
1746:15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1729:14:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1710:05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1693:03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1670:03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1658:02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1641:01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1613:01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1591:23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1569:23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1552:20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1533:20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1506:17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1497:17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1488:13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1474:11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1457:09:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1433:09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1421:09:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1403:08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1380:08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1365:05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1346:04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1334:03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1312:03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1291:02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1243:02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1228:01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1209:01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1191:00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1155:00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1134:00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1122:00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1110:23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1096:23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1079:23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1050:23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1035:22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1014:22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
997:22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
978:22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
956:21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
923:21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
906:21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
892:21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
875:21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
858:21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
837:21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
810:21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
776:21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
753:21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
735:21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
726:21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
713:20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
699:16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
507:17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
491:11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
421:08:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
176:17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
167:Thank you all. I accept.
159:21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
137:20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
103:16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2950:Please do not modify it.
2318:, Seraphim Whipp gets a
2291:looks a goodie to me. --
142:Co-nomination by Sceptre
2086:- looks just fine :) -
1943:- All looks good here.
1880:. Trustworthy editor.--
1103:. Excellent candidate.
730:She looks great to me.
535:Why do you think that?
463:Optional question from
108:Co-nomination by Rudget
38:Please do not modify it
1650:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1004:- trustworthy editor.
515:Questions from Majorly
146:experience in articles
2581:(ec) Since when were
2035:- looks reasonable. —
1648:As per nom and track.
34:request for adminship
2811:member of this group
2316:my RfA criteria v1.0
2245:- No problem here. -
478:Please read this AFD
222:and other areas in
2410:ready for the mop.
1501:Didn't know...etc.
1373:Anonymous Dissident
963:dihydrogen monoxide
150:do the right thing™
86:User:Seraphim Whipp
2712:wasn't he just...?
2362:
2325:Hennessey, Patrick
1934:
1850:
1376:
1239:wasn't he just...?
667:before commenting.
400:User:Seraphimblade
361:? Why or why not?
39:
2938:
2356:
2347:
2067:assume good faith
2055:
2048:
2041:
1992:
1918:
1844:
1794:
1528:
1419:
1370:
1322:Need for Speed 11
976:
954:
835:
805:
800:
689:as nominator. --
437:
388:
37:
2980:
2952:
2934:
2922:
2920:
2894:
2848:
2846:
2832:
2821:
2819:
2783:
2761:
2759:
2727:
2725:
2696:
2694:
2668:
2666:
2650:
2643:
2618:
2616:
2599:
2597:
2573:
2571:
2559:
2552:
2542:
2540:
2520:
2518:
2505:
2503:
2439:
2421:
2416:
2395:SynergeticMaggot
2383:
2379:
2375:
2360:
2346:
2344:
2281:
2276:
2271:
2258:
2251:
2222:
2220:
2215:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2051:
2044:
2037:
1991:
1989:
1982:
1975:
1947:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1890:
1885:
1869:
1864:
1848:
1815:
1793:
1790:
1789:
1754:
1734:Cautious Support
1718:
1685:
1682:
1639:
1636:
1630:
1607:
1602:
1581:
1550:
1545:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1485:
1452:
1415:
1374:
1363:
1358:
1288:
1281:
1273:
1225:
1224:
1207:
1205:
1186:
1177:
1168:
1153:
1094:
1073:
1066:
1047:
1032:
1025:
966:
952:I see no changes
950:
946:
941:
936:
854:
849:
829:
826:
824:
804:
798:
794:
788:
751:
744:
707:
651:
610:
563:General comments
502:
433:
416:
398:Any relation to
390:
386:
382:
379:
301:
292:
283:
248:Made in the Dark
171:
131:
63:
2988:
2987:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2955:this nomination
2948:
2918:
2909:
2844:
2817:
2757:
2723:
2692:
2664:
2614:
2608:Knowledge (XXG)
2569:
2538:
2501:
2467:
2433:
2417:
2412:
2358:
2342:
2340:with pleasure.
2279:
2274:
2269:
2254:
2247:
2218:
2211:
2209:
2110:. No question.
2093:
2091:
2088:
1985:
1978:
1976:
1945:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1867:
1862:
1846:
1791:
1787:
1716:
1700:Looks fine. :)
1683:
1680:
1634:
1623:
1620:
1605:
1600:
1598:per nominator.
1543:
1541:
1529:
1524:
1517:
1515:
1483:
1442:
1372:
1356:
1354:
1284:
1277:
1269:
1252:personal attack
1222:
1142:
1087:
1075:
1045:
972:
944:
939:
934:
852:
847:
834:
808:
799:
742:
705:
683:
674:
603:
586:
565:
389:
384:
377:
375:
184:
129:
54:
50:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2986:
2984:
2976:
2975:
2965:
2964:
2960:
2959:
2927:
2926:
2908:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2466:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2444:
2426:
2405:
2388:
2366:
2351:
2335:
2303:
2286:
2263:
2240:
2226:
2203:
2193:LessHeard vanU
2185:
2163:
2146:
2134:
2117:
2105:
2081:
2060:
2030:
2013:
1996:
1969:
1952:
1938:
1912:
1896:
1875:
1854:
1838:
1821:
1801:
1780:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1731:
1712:
1695:
1672:
1660:
1643:
1615:
1593:
1574:Strong Support
1571:
1557:Strong support
1554:
1535:
1521:
1508:
1499:
1490:
1476:
1459:
1435:
1423:
1405:
1382:
1367:
1348:
1336:
1314:
1293:
1245:
1230:
1216:definitely. —
1211:
1193:
1157:
1136:
1124:
1112:
1098:
1081:
1069:
1052:
1040:Strong support
1037:
1016:
999:
980:
970:
958:
925:
908:
894:
877:
860:
839:
830:
812:
795:
791:
778:
755:
737:
728:
718:Co-nom support
715:
701:
682:
679:
678:
677:
673:
670:
656:
655:
654:
652:
588:Seraphim Whipp
582:
581:
574:mathbot's tool
570:Seraphim Whipp
564:
561:
560:
559:
543:
542:
530:
529:
512:
511:
510:
509:
472:
460:
459:
458:
457:
429:Question from
426:
425:
424:
423:
381:
374:Question from
371:
370:
369:
368:
351:
350:
349:
348:
342:
341:
340:
339:
326:
325:
324:
323:
274:
273:
272:
271:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
230:
229:
228:
227:
208:
183:
180:
179:
178:
72:Seraphim Whipp
49:
47:Seraphim Whipp
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2985:
2974:
2971:
2970:
2968:
2958:
2956:
2951:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2937:
2933:
2925:
2921:
2914:
2911:
2910:
2906:
2900:
2897:
2895:
2889:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2872:
2869:
2868:
2851:
2847:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2835:
2833:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2820:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2786:
2784:
2778:
2775:
2772:
2769:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2760:
2753:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2714:
2713:
2709:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2667:
2660:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2651:
2649:
2644:
2637:
2621:
2617:
2609:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2598:
2596:
2595:Sephiroth BCR
2588:
2584:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2560:
2558:
2553:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2541:
2534:
2529:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2519:
2517:
2516:Sephiroth BCR
2510:
2509:
2508:
2504:
2497:
2494:
2491:
2488:
2485:
2482:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2473:
2469:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2445:
2443:
2440:
2438:
2437:
2430:
2427:
2425:
2422:
2420:
2415:
2409:
2406:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2389:
2387:
2384:
2376:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2361:
2355:
2352:
2350:
2345:
2339:
2336:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2323:
2321:
2317:
2314:According to
2311:
2307:
2304:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2277:
2272:
2267:
2264:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2252:
2250:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2236:
2235:
2230:
2227:
2225:
2221:
2216:
2214:
2207:
2204:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2116:
2113:
2109:
2106:
2104:
2101:
2099:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2061:
2059:
2056:
2054:
2049:
2047:
2042:
2040:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2014:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1995:
1990:
1988:
1983:
1981:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1942:
1939:
1937:
1933:
1928:
1923:
1916:
1913:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1897:
1895:
1892:
1891:
1886:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1870:
1865:
1858:
1855:
1853:
1849:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1816:
1814:
1813:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1784:
1781:
1779:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1732:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1719:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1676:
1673:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1642:
1637:
1631:
1629:
1627:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1603:
1597:
1594:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1520:
1513:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1455:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1430:Jack Merridew
1427:
1424:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1298:Friendly and
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1282:
1280:
1274:
1272:
1266:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1210:
1206:
1204:
1203:Sephiroth BCR
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1152:
1150:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1090:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1074:
1067:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
989:
984:
981:
979:
974:
965:
964:
959:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
942:
937:
929:
926:
924:
920:
916:
912:
909:
907:
904:
903:
898:
895:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
876:
872:
868:
864:
861:
859:
856:
855:
850:
843:
840:
838:
833:
828:
827:
816:
813:
811:
806:
801:
790:
789:
782:
779:
777:
774:
771:
770:
766:
763:
759:
756:
754:
749:
745:
738:
736:
733:
729:
727:
724:
723:
719:
716:
714:
711:
708:
702:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
684:
680:
676:
675:
671:
669:
668:
666:
662:
653:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
609:
606:
602:
599:
596:
593:
589:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
553:
551:
547:
541:
538:
537:
536:
534:
528:
525:
524:
523:
521:
517:
516:
508:
505:
503:
497:
494:
493:
492:
489:
488:
483:
479:
476:
473:
470:
466:
462:
461:
454:
451:
450:
448:
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
436:
432:
422:
419:
417:
411:
407:
404:
403:
401:
397:
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
380:
366:
363:
362:
360:
356:
353:
352:
346:
345:
344:
343:
337:
334:
333:
331:
328:
327:
321:
317:
314:
313:
311:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
295:
294:
293:
286:
285:
284:
268:
265:
264:
262:
259:
258:
252:
249:
245:
241:
238:
237:
235:
232:
231:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
202:
198:
195:
194:
192:
189:
188:
187:
181:
177:
174:
172:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
135:
132:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
100:
96:
92:
87:
83:
80:
77:
73:
69:
68:
67:
62:
59:
58:
48:
45:
41:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2949:
2946:
2929:
2928:
2912:
2870:
2751:
2706:
2648:
2607:
2594:
2557:
2527:
2515:
2476:
2475:
2471:
2470:
2446:
2435:
2434:
2428:
2418:
2413:
2407:
2390:
2368:
2353:
2337:
2320:score of 79%
2313:
2309:
2305:
2288:
2265:
2255:
2248:
2242:
2233:
2228:
2212:
2205:
2188:
2179:trivial vote
2166:
2148:
2136:
2119:
2107:
2089:
2083:
2062:
2052:
2045:
2038:
2033:Mild support
2032:
2015:
1998:
1986:
1979:
1971:
1954:
1940:
1914:
1881:
1877:
1860:
1857:Weak support
1856:
1840:
1823:
1811:
1810:
1807:
1803:
1782:
1738:IronGargoyle
1733:
1722:
1714:
1704:
1697:
1689:
1679:
1674:
1662:
1645:
1625:
1624:
1617:
1595:
1586:
1584:
1577:
1573:
1556:
1537:
1514:
1511:
1478:
1461:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1437:
1425:
1407:
1395:
1384:
1350:
1338:
1295:
1285:
1278:
1270:
1264:
1247:
1233:
1213:
1202:
1195:
1183:
1182:
1174:
1173:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1143:
1138:
1126:
1114:
1105:
1100:
1083:
1062:
1061:
1054:
1039:
1030:
1018:
1001:
987:
982:
961:
935:bibliomaniac
932:
931:
927:
910:
900:
896:
879:
862:
845:
841:
819:
814:
785:
780:
772:
768:
764:
757:
743:FlowerpotmaN
720:
717:
703:Per co-nom.
686:
658:
657:
644:
638:
632:
626:
620:
614:
607:
600:
594:
556:
545:
544:
539:
532:
531:
526:
519:
518:
514:
513:
495:
485:
481:
474:
452:
442:
428:
427:
405:
395:
373:
372:
364:
354:
335:
329:
315:
309:
298:
297:
289:
288:
280:
279:
276:
275:
266:
260:
239:
233:
196:
190:
185:
164:
153:
149:
141:
140:
123:
107:
106:
78:
70:
56:
52:
51:
46:
30:
28:
2477:Weak oppose
2359:Fattyjwoods
2039:TreasuryTag
1503:John Reaves
1353:per nom. --
1145:Malinaccier
244:Walk It Off
2932:Ursasapien
2343:SlimVirgin
2020:Balloonman
1767:Locke Cole
1667:Parent5446
1413:Ursasapien
1326:hbdragon88
1106:Black Kite
769:discussion
672:Discussion
431:Ursasapien
31:successful
2893:Seraphim♥
2831:Seraphim♥
2807:consensus
2782:Seraphim♥
2659:sarcastic
2436:Wizardman
2234:Gimmetrow
2165:Happy to
2124:J Milburn
2071:Parsecboy
1812:Gtstricky
1753:Seraphim♥
1610:NHRHS2010
1484:скоморохъ
1304:Guest9999
732:Acalamari
630:block log
578:talk page
501:Seraphim♥
415:Seraphim♥
220:WP:AN/3RR
170:Seraphim♥
112:ArielGold
2967:Category
2647:cierekim
2556:cierekim
2374:Rockpock
2187:Pile on
2053:contribs
2003:Cenarium
1946:Tiptoety
1399:contribs
1389:Casliber
1320:over on
1318:WP:THIRD
1260:accepted
1176:Favorite
1029:cierekim
915:Davewild
902:MastCell
884:Camaeron
787:Wisdom89
598:contribs
320:WP:BLOCK
291:Favorite
82:contribs
2913:Neutral
2907:Neutral
2708:seresin
2451:Neparis
2447:Support
2429:Support
2408:Support
2391:Support
2369:Support
2338:Support
2306:Support
2293:Dweller
2289:Support
2266:Support
2249:Warthog
2243:Support
2229:Support
2206:Support
2189:Support
2167:support
2149:Support
2137:Support
2120:Support
2112:Kafziel
2108:Support
2084:Support
2063:Support
2016:Support
1999:Support
1972:Support
1955:Support
1941:Support
1915:Support
1878:Support
1847:Spencer
1841:Support
1828:siarach
1824:Support
1804:Support
1783:Support
1717:Majorly
1698:Support
1675:Support
1663:Support
1646:Support
1618:Support
1596:Support
1561:Bearian
1538:Support
1512:Support
1479:Support
1466:PeaceNT
1462:Support
1438:Support
1426:Support
1408:Support
1385:Support
1361:iva1979
1351:Support
1339:Support
1296:Support
1248:Support
1235:seresin
1214:Support
1196:Support
1160:Support
1139:Support
1127:Support
1119:Gwernol
1115:Support
1084:Support
1065:RC-0722
1055:Support
1019:Support
1002:Support
993:contact
983:Support
928:Support
911:Support
897:Support
880:Support
867:MrPrada
863:Support
842:Support
815:Support
781:Support
758:Support
687:Support
681:Support
605:deleted
465:Sceptre
216:WP:AN/I
212:WP:RFPP
2936:(talk)
2871:Oppose
2587:WP:NOT
2472:Oppose
2465:Oppose
2354:Ka Pai
2171:Stifle
2141:Jayjg
1980:Fusion
1863:нмŵוτн
1792:le_Jrb
1681:Burner
1580:Enigma
1525:(talk)
1447:ndonic
1417:(talk)
1218:Zerida
1185:Cookie
1167:Milk's
1092:styles
1044:Riana
1006:Addhoc
853:(talk)
762:αἰτίας
760:yep. —
706:Rudget
550:Violin
482:delete
435:(talk)
410:Seraph
385:(talk)
359:WP:AOR
300:Cookie
282:Milk's
224:CAT:AB
205:WP:AIV
130:Rudget
124:overly
91:WP:AIV
61:scribe
2533:block
2419:broil
2414:Royal
2256:Demon
2219:«...»
2153:Dureo
1906:Joker
1899:Slade
1706:Cobra
1702:Glass
1628:levse
1601:NHRHS
1548:drama
1518:Maxim
1494:Steel
1343:Shell
1300:civil
1271:jonny
1131:Xenon
1089:Comet
1072:kills
848:jj137
825:aveno
661:civil
612:count
378:Maxim
116:Nancy
16:<
2888:This
2879:talk
2875:Sf46
2799:here
2795:here
2741:talk
2680:talk
2642:Dloh
2585:and
2583:WP:V
2551:Dloh
2455:talk
2399:talk
2329:talk
2297:talk
2270:Jmlk
2197:talk
2175:talk
2157:talk
2128:talk
2075:talk
2046:talk
2024:talk
2007:talk
1963:talk
1832:talk
1742:talk
1724:talk
1684:0718
1654:talk
1635:Talk
1606:2010
1565:talk
1470:talk
1393:talk
1330:talk
1308:talk
1265:year
1149:talk
1024:Dloh
1010:talk
919:talk
888:talk
871:talk
821:κaτa
722:Will
695:talk
642:rfar
624:logs
592:talk
568:See
487:Will
214:and
155:Will
99:talk
76:talk
2752:not
2737:Avi
2676:Avi
2528:not
2310:not
2177:) (
1987:Mix
1959:Axl
1921:Hús
1903:The
1889:!?!
1884:TBC
1544:Lra
1369:--
1256:3RR
1101:Aye
988:AGK
691:Avi
648:spi
618:AfD
546:12.
533:11.
520:10.
120:AIV
114:or
95:Avi
64:at
57:WjB
2969::
2881:)
2776:,
2773:,
2770:,
2743:)
2710:|
2682:)
2495:,
2492:,
2489:,
2486:,
2483:,
2457:)
2401:)
2393:.
2331:)
2299:)
2213:KS
2199:)
2181:)
2159:)
2130:)
2094:is
2077:)
2026:)
2009:)
1965:)
1931:nd
1908:)
1834:)
1773:•
1769:•
1744:)
1727:)
1656:)
1638:•
1632:•
1621:—
1567:)
1492:–
1472:)
1401:)
1332:)
1324:.
1310:)
1237:|
1060:.
1012:)
995:)
930:.
921:)
890:)
873:)
865:.
802:/
746:·(
697:)
636:lu
557:A.
552:?
540:A.
527:A.
496:A.
484:)
475:9.
453:A:
443:8.
406:A:
396:7.
355:6.
330:5.
316:A:
310:4.
267:A:
261:3.
240:A:
234:2.
197:A:
191:1.
101:)
36:.
2877:(
2739:(
2678:(
2453:(
2397:(
2382:t
2378:e
2327:(
2322:.
2295:(
2280:7
2275:1
2195:(
2173:(
2155:(
2151:-
2126:(
2098:n
2096:o
2092:l
2090:A
2073:(
2022:(
2005:(
1961:(
1926:ö
1901:(
1868:τ
1830:(
1788:A
1775:c
1771:t
1765:—
1740:(
1721:(
1652:(
1626:R
1563:(
1468:(
1450:O
1444:A
1396:·
1391:(
1357:S
1328:(
1306:(
1286:t
1279:m
1275:-
1223:☥
1151:)
1147:(
1068:/
1046:⁂
1008:(
991:(
975:)
973:0
971:2
969:H
967:(
945:5
940:1
917:(
886:(
869:(
832:C
823:ʟ
807:)
797:T
792:(
773:•
765:•
750:)
748:t
710:.
693:(
650:)
645:·
639:·
633:·
627:·
621:·
615:·
608:·
601:·
595:·
590:(
580:.
471:.
365:A
336:A
134:.
97:(
79:·
74:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.