95:) – It is with great excitement that I nominate The Utahraptor for adminship! As many of you know, he is one of the top vandal fighters out there. He is excellent at knowing when to press the "big red button" on Huggle, and his AIV reports are spot-on. But that's not all, folks. He is a co-coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors and regularly puts his top-notch work into their backlog elimination drives. In addition to that, he has 4 DYKs to his name along with quite a few thorough, well-sourced articles about towns in Utah. The Utahraptor's previous RfA failed per WP:NOTNOW, but he has since been advancing in huge leaps and bounds. In late August he temporarily retired due to unspecified personal issues, but is now back and good as ever. Good luck and happy editing!
900:, while vandal fighting is good and necessary, it's not necessary to have the admin tools to do that. This editor does not evidence enough policy or Wiki knowledge to demonstrate he would use the tools effectively, per: excellence in knowing when to "press the big red button on Huggle" does not confer requisite experience for adminship; getting DYKs requires only a few words and one verifiable source and doesn't confer article writing and conflict resolution experience per se (and churning out DYKs just before an RFA doesn't evidence long-term editing experience); no evidence of conflict resolution skills;
743:
context the sourcing was insufficient and you were right to take the view that the admin was exempt from 3RR because of the BLP issues. I would have pointed out though that the admin's behaviour was far from good: he stopped engaging the new user on the talk page and just kept reverting with arrogant edit summaries while leaving templated warnings on the user's talk page. However you're certainly right that there was nothing actionable about that behaviour. --
1592:
not just for the sake of it, not just to show that you care about the project, but because it helps to show that you understand policies & guidelines and that you can work effectively with editors you disagree with. That can be demonstrated in other ways, but I'm not seeing any overwhelming evidence here. It also helps you to understand better the context within which content disputes arise.
926:
correct the issues. Further, the level of problems in that article put the GOCE in context; any one can sign up at GOCE. Sorry, adminship isn't a prize; it's a responsibility for which editors must be prepared. And, last RFA was only four months ago. All together, I see a lack of maturity and experience here. Please do some serious article work and you may be better prepared next time.
1565:, but Q4 (wrong in a couple of ways, as people have already pointed out), the RfA proposal (with no realistic desysop, we shouldn't be making it easier), and the lack of any real difference since last RfA, all suggest that a deeper knowledge of Knowledge policies is needed. I look forward to being able to Support a future run. --
1586:
important. However, there are a number of concerns that have been mentioned above. I disagree with your adminship analogy, likening it to being a school janitor. I would probably trust you with the "cleaning" part (eg. deleting articles that say "I like pie!!!!!! lulz") and perhaps a bit of "security
1424:
The fact that you set up a proposal to reform RFA by lowering standards and then ran two days later shows a general lack of clue about how things work. From my perspective, it seems as if you knew that this road would be rocky, so you shot out a proposal to make it easier for you and then seeing that
1596:
is from six months ago, but it is still a concern. Also, as this is already long, per the comments from Sandy, Malleus, Peter
Karlsen and others. As an editor, you are a net positive to the project so I hope you take these comments as constructive criticism and not let them put you off contributing
1591:
or suspend them, or to decide when they can come back to school, or to fire teachers or to go through students' work and get rid of some of it. To move away from the analogy, adminship is a bit more complicated (blocking and protecting during content disputes for example). Content work is important
1542:
per Sandy. Though, I'll also note that there are many others (including those with buttons) who don't know what plagiarism is (and libel, for that matter), but it doesn't seem to deter them from opining. Still, we have non-lawyers construing legal principles, so perhaps it is expected ... but we
742:
All looks good - I remarked in your first RfA that despite your inexperience you were doing very well and that seems to have continued and I think you're now up for the tools. The answer to Q4 was good, in my view. I'm not so sure about the general "magazines are unreliable" statement, but in this
301:
were to continue after they have seen the note, then it would be a violation of policy, and I would temporarily block them. If several users were to begin adding this information to the article, I would temporarily protect the article (the type of protection would depend on what type of user, i.e.
1699:
If we unbundled the block button so that good vandalfighters like yourself could block IPs and autoconfirmed accounts I'm confident that you'd use that well. But admins also several other tools including the delete button, and as Fox and SandyGeorgia explained I don't think you are ready for that
1515:
per
Malleus Fatuorum. I can't support candidates who haven't been much different within their previous RfA. While I'm not concerned by the maturity, I am more concerned about his article building ability. At least 1 Good article expansion would be sufficient to demonstrate the Knowledge policies.
1141:
is a core policy-- the failure to use reliable sources is as important as the close paraphrasing. The point about DYK is that we need to check these more carefully at RFA when they are put forward as evidence of writing ability, since it is apparent that DYK is not checking them closely enough.
1014:
I think it would be wise of you not to tar all of DYK with the same brush. DYK nominations are stringently reviewed when done right, but just like any other content review process we get the slack reviewers who choose not to be strict. The difference is that DYK simply doesn't have the time to do
925:
shortly before an RFA run, and then doing nothing to correct the issues could lead to the impression of trying to rack up "prizes" for RFA. Each time an article is nominated for a content review process, another editor invests time in that review, and nominators should be willing and prepared to
1101:
Perhaps
Intelati can explain how he expects most editors with normal vision to detect a username in that tiny colorful mess, and you can explain how newbies are supposed to know that "fatal error" links to a user talk page? Both of you could show more understanding of what should be a serious,
1849:– I am split on my vote here. On the one hand, you are an excellent vandal fighter with decent article edits. On the other hand, question 4 was a bit off, and your attitude concerning other users is questionable. For those reasons, I have chosen to be with the neutral lot.
1439:
Okay, in your defense there were complaints above your thread so I guess I might be wrong on the making it easier part. I'm going to keep it though as I'm unsure of what your motive might have been. I do respect you as an editor though so don't feel bashed by my oppose.
194:
In my last RfA, I said that vandal fighting was my best contribution to the encyclopedia. Now, however, I feel that I've done much more than play whack-a-mole with the vandals. Since my last RfA, I have written two new articles, both of which were featured on
208:
203:, that is fairly active and that I tend to. Also, I am co-coordinating the Guild of Copy Editors' November 2010 Backlog elimination drive. But most of all, I feel my best contributions would probably be my collaboration with other editors. In
1173:
Appears to be an unseemly rush to climb the greasy pole. At your editors review on 27 September you said "I had an RfA on June 25 that was unsuccessful, and I want to try another RfA sometime next year", but here you are only a few weeks
318:
Please give a profile of what you believe to be the most pernicious and problematic kind of vandal on
Knowledge. Is Knowledge well prepared to deal with such vandals? As an admin what would you do to deal more effectively with them?
1032:
Every one I've seen at RFA contains plagiarism-- and, you might note, that by decreasing the value of the DYK-RFA prize, I may help improve the time you have to spend on "real" article development, not those seeking an RFA prize.
172:
and delete inappropriate or unencyclopedic pages. I think it's important to note that, at first, I will be looking over CSD nominations, then when I become a bit more comfortable, I will move into XFD work. I also plan on watching
904:
but more importantly, all of this lack of experience is reflected in his statement above on Q4: "a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source, as they can, and usually do, contain gossip". This is quite simply wrong.
667:
I have no reason to oppose, no blocks, automated edit percentages are reasonable, edit summary usage is good, enough content work. I did not find any civility issues at first glance. Good luck with the rest of your Hell week!
1974:. MC10, above, captures my thoughts well. You've done a lot of good work so far, and I look forward to seeing you have some success at RFA... but recent concerns plus Question 4 mean that I cannot support at this time. Best,
1617:, and here you are claiming something sourced from "A Travel Site for the Nostalgic & Historic Minded" as one of your best contributions? Sorry; I don't trust your judgement in the least. As per many others above,
771:
As you have been just promoted to administrator, I must ask if you agree with his view in Q4 that a, "magazine is not normally considered a reliable source," which is simply wrong. Notable publications such as
1621:
shows to me that you don't understand either what it is that a
Knowledge admin actually does, nor the broader issues affecting Knowledge's governance, both of which are unavoidable if you have sysop status. –
177:
for any pages that must be protected. I have thoroughly read the protection policy and know that indefinite protection should only be implemented in very extreme cases of vandalism or violation of
Knowledge
1744:. A very unfortunate statement for someone who applies to be a janitor, a schoolmaster, a censor and an executioner all at once. I'd be more than satisfied to hand you the broom, but not the noose nor the
1779:
Q4. I do think though, that bashing of DYK belongs elsewhere. I for one don't think much of it at all and believe it should be replaced with good articles instead, but that's for another place.
1825:
A Wikipedian for less than a year, and really only in high gear since June, the candidate is on the right path but lacks experience. Get some mentoring help and come back in six to 12 months.--
1647:
Wait at least six more months, and learn your policy before coming back. I am seeing some good work and a significant amount of policy misunderstandings, as evidenced by the comments above.
287:, please (a) respond to the new editor (doing so on your talk page); and (b) describe below what, if any, action you are going to take in respect of the article and the editors concerned.
1241:: magazines of high editorial quality can meet our standards of reliability (of course, a dubious allegation against a living person supported only by a purported offline source might be
1800:. I suggest that before any further RFA, this editor takes time to gain both a deeper understanding of policy issues and much more experience of how content disputes are handled. --
581:
293:
Well, after I have responded on my talk, I would leave a note on the talk page of the article in question stating that the information regarding the club's former CEO does violate
522:
517:
1587:
work (eg. blocking blatant and persistent vandalism-only accounts), but there is more to the role than that. I presume you wouldn't expect your janitor to put students in
955:
221:
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?
1632:"a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source" - Uhm, that's completely wrong. I don't think you're quite up to it. Try again in a few months to a year.
371:
244:
232:
267:
Wind back the clock a few hours and assume you are an administrator at the time. A new editor who you have welcomed has asked for your help on your talk page:
2000:
204:
358:
962:. This is a frequent problem that goes undetected at DYK, but should not be missed when RFA noms put forward their DYKs as evidence of writing ability.
1015:
secondary reviews of reviews, with our turnover rate. You may see DYK as FAC's poorer cousin but it's unfair to characterise this as a problem with DYK.
284:
1349:
How does that indicate temperament problems? IMO, I was being completely calm and rational. And yes, I eventually did figure out that I was wrong.
147:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
200:
512:
365:
1192:
427:
1812:
1618:
1484:
1425:
it wasn't going well, threw your hat into the ring anyways. Come back later and I might support but you need more experience and clue first.
1378:
1323:
1200:
460:
248:
1259:
Back again? Since the last RfA, you quit, came back again, wasted everyone's time with that, and clicked Huggle's "big red button" (a lot).
561:
I think it's worth mentioning that only two of my DYKs are articles that I've written. The other two are articles that I've just nominated.
297:
because a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source, as they can, and usually do, contain gossip. If addition of the content by
1358:
1225:
570:
351:
120:
92:
1767:
401:
395:
1980:
538:
240:
1796:. The Utahraptor is clearly a committed, conscientious and enthusiastic editor ... but the answer to Q4 completely misunderstands
548:
132:
1956:
1661:
410:
30:
17:
271:. The new editor is complaining about very recent (within the last few minutes) bullying and edit-warring by an administrator,
1060:
848:
486:
207:
discussion, I discussed what articles to include within the scope of WikiProject
American Old West. Also, if you visit the
1570:
1522:
276:
59:
507:
959:
1707:
502:
128:
1934:- I'm not in the mood to pile-on, but you probably should have waited a little bit longer since your previous RfA.
1867:
1749:
1412:
1268:
Real-life personal issues are a legitimate reason to quit for a while. And no it did not "waste everybody's time".
1188:
1023:
626:
1961:
1808:
922:
453:
1984:
1966:
1940:
1926:
1910:
1889:
1834:
1817:
1788:
1771:
1752:
1733:
1716:
1691:
1668:
1642:
1627:
1608:
1574:
1566:
1552:
1534:
1507:
1488:
1471:
1449:
1434:
1416:
1363:
1355:
1344:
1318:
1307:
1274:
1263:
1254:
1230:
1222:
1211:
1154:
1133:
1114:
1096:
1085:
1064:
1045:
1027:
1009:
974:
952:
938:
892:
868:
852:
826:
793:
766:
752:
737:
715:
681:
659:
641:
630:
606:
575:
567:
481:
345:
268:
136:
117:
101:
86:
71:
1898:
1250:
711:
602:
1102:
professional venture by using sigs that demonstrate clue about the effect your sig would have on newbies.
1702:
1603:
1150:
1110:
1081:
1041:
1005:
970:
934:
160:
I plan on continuing my anti-vandalism work here on
Knowledge, and if I am given the tools, I will watch
1921:
1408:
1184:
1123:
As far as I can see she's not bashing DYK in itself, more those at DYK who use sources almost verbatim.
1019:
913:
and many others are magazines that are reliable sources and apt for many BLPs. Also does not know what
748:
622:
211:, I participated in several of those discussions, some of which determined major changes to the Drive.
168:
and block those users that have chosen usernames that violate the username policy. I will also patrol
1951:
1903:
1801:
1784:
1656:
1548:
1478:
1180:
863:
446:
1615:
you were lecturing me on how the DYK process "demonstrates the ability to provide a reliable source"
199:. I also copy edited 54 articles with a total of 117,347 words. Also, I have created a WikiProject,
1873:
1729:
1350:
1217:
948:
562:
341:
112:
82:
979:
It gets better: I'd like to hear from
Utahraptor (and the DYK people) what makes the travel site,
1761:
1313:
1269:
1246:
1207:
1091:
1051:
991:
839:
735:
695:
654:
636:
586:
423:
96:
543:
251:
discussion left me a bit frustrated, but I was able to handle the situation calmly and maturely.
1975:
1830:
1687:
1598:
1588:
1528:
1338:
1301:
1143:
1103:
1074:
1034:
998:
963:
927:
789:
65:
1916:
1445:
1430:
744:
676:
298:
272:
259:
169:
1946:
1780:
1651:
1622:
1544:
860:
Friendly, hard working user, great anti-vandalism work. I don't see any reason to oppose.
781:
702:
593:
1582:. I too think that you have done a lot of good work for the project, and vandal-fighting
1861:
1725:
1562:
1503:
1389:
888:
236:
1994:
1633:
1203:
1124:
1070:
817:
777:
724:
690:
310:
294:
196:
174:
165:
161:
1700:
yet. Happy to see you here again in a few months once you've resolved those issues.
1826:
1745:
1683:
1517:
1326:
1289:
1238:
806:
785:
784:
are all reliable sources that can be cited as references in any Knowledge article.
761:
227:
I have been in many conflicts. The one that should probably be brought up first is
54:
1050:
I just want to point out that this is the RfA, not the DYK bashing page. Thanks.--
987:
policy. Not only does the site give no indicationn of reliability that I can find:
1935:
1797:
1441:
1426:
1405:
1138:
1016:
994:
984:
669:
988:
1680:
1457:
993:
What is going on at DYK, passing articles that don't even meet a core policy,
279:. (Assume that the article is real and in the mainspace). After reviewing the
243:
discussion frustrated me some, but I left before a repeat of what happened at
980:
235:. I felt as if I was being insulted, and looking back, I can see it was very
1853:
1498:
1382:
1260:
1090:
Don't see anything wrong with that sig; you should see some of my old ones.
884:
53:
Final (8/28/6); ended 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) - Closed as withdrawn -
773:
1201:
This candidate does not sufficiently respect other volunteers' opinions.
164:
for new reports and, when necessary, block vandals. I will also watch
239:-y of me. Thankfully, somebody calmed me down. Several months later,
1679:. Also, "magazine is not normally considered a reliable source" is
1476:
Not impressed with maturity in last couple days. Seems like a hat.
1216:
How was I being disrespectful? I was simply explaining my opinion.
426:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
438:
812:
442:
800:
108:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1312:
In the candidate's defense, that diff is over 6 months old.
1456:
I'm not too terribly fond of his answer to question #4. ~~
1381:
when it comes to how things actually work around here. →
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
188:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
154:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
1879:
1742:
1676:
1614:
1593:
1285:
1175:
918:
914:
901:
389:
383:
377:
280:
228:
1288:
also indicates immaturity and temperamental problems.
723:
Definitely. Fantastic user. Very ready for the tools.
1237:
Answer to question 4 indicates a misunderstanding of
531:
495:
474:
408:Edit summary usage for The Utahraptor can be found
1945:I must agree with the above Opposes and Neutrals.
209:July 2010 GOCE backlog elimination drive talk page
1741:per your "school janitor" statement on talk page
621:per my interactions with this user. All good. -
760:A hard working, mature user with many skills. --
302:autoconfirmed, IP, etc., is adding the content).
1561:this time. Great vandal work and great work at
943:Also, yet another DYK that follows the source
883:Sorry, you got question 4 totally wrong, IMO.
1496:. Concerns about maturity and experience. --
454:
245:Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
233:Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
8:
1404:per Townlake and close paraphrasing issues.
983:a reliable source. Admins should understand
1915:Frankly, I was surprised to see this here.
689:Great user, totally ready for tools, plus
461:
447:
439:
1543:have to start somewhere in fixing this.--
1897:to avoid pile-on. Should have gone with
1073:; thanks for your invaluable guidance!
422:Please keep discussion constructive and
990:it's a commercial site with a store!
7:
2001:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
997:and putting them on the main page?
956:Let's get serious about plagiarism
693:would stay clean with their help.
309:Additional optional question from
258:Additional optional question from
24:
1677:Temperament and maturity concerns
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1245:removed pending verification.)
1:
201:WikiProject American Old West
1985:18:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1967:18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1941:14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1927:13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1911:08:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1890:05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1835:17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1818:17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1789:15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1772:14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1753:14:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1734:14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1717:14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1692:13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1669:12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1643:12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1628:11:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1609:10:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1575:08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1553:07:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1535:06:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1508:06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1489:05:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1472:04:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1450:04:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1435:04:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1417:04:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1364:11:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1345:08:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1319:07:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1308:03:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1275:04:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1264:03:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1255:03:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1231:11:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1212:03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1155:14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1134:12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1115:14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1097:05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1086:05:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1065:04:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1046:04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1028:04:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1010:04:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
975:03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
960:Knowledge:Close paraphrasing
939:03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
893:03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
869:14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
853:04:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
827:14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
794:14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
767:03:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
753:03:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
738:03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
716:02:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
682:02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
660:02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
642:02:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
631:06:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
607:02:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
576:01:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
247:could occur. Most recently,
137:19:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
127:I withdraw this nomination.
125:01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
102:04:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
72:19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
923:ill-prepared article for GA
143:Questions for the candidate
2017:
1195:) 03:18, October 28, 2010
339:Links for The Utahraptor:
111:I accept this nomination.
1069:I just want to point out
1377:- per SandyGeorgia, and
1324:He hasn't changed since.
798:Hell, even the likes of
39:Please do not modify it.
1397:9:15 pm, Today (UTC−7)
1613:Only four days since
635:indenting; premature
580:Edit stats posted to
129:The Utahraptor's sock
31:request for adminship
1760:Q4. Dear oh dear...
1379:general lack of clue
712:What did I do wrong?
603:What did I do wrong?
544:Global contributions
1899:your first instinct
1567:Boing! said Zebedee
949:Spring Canyon, Utah
508:Non-automated edits
428:their contributions
1938:
1681:wrong wrong wrong.
1284:per SandyGeorgia.
981:Legends of America
947:too closely: see
902:this conversation;
838:Willing to help.--
487:Edit summary usage
430:before commenting.
40:
1983:
1936:
1886:
1816:
1619:this conversation
1398:
1197:
1183:comment added by
557:
556:
38:
2008:
1979:
1964:
1959:
1954:
1949:
1924:
1919:
1909:
1907:
1888:
1885:
1882:
1876:
1870:
1864:
1858:
1856:
1807:
1804:
1750:East of Borschov
1714:
1710:
1705:
1667:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1640:
1625:
1606:
1601:
1531:
1525:
1520:
1469:
1466:
1463:
1460:
1442:Kevin Rutherford
1427:Kevin Rutherford
1396:
1394:
1387:
1353:
1341:
1335:
1334:
1316:
1304:
1298:
1297:
1272:
1220:
1196:
1185:Malleus Fatuorum
1177:
1147:
1131:
1107:
1094:
1078:
1057:
1054:
1038:
1002:
967:
931:
845:
842:
824:
764:
733:
714:
709:
707:
700:
679:
674:
657:
639:
623:Peregrine Fisher
605:
600:
598:
591:
565:
503:Articles created
463:
456:
449:
440:
413:
405:
364:
334:General comments
299:User:Broncos1988
170:Special:NewPages
115:
99:
68:
62:
57:
47:The Utahraptor 2
2016:
2015:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2007:
2006:
2005:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1962:
1957:
1952:
1947:
1922:
1917:
1905:
1902:
1880:
1874:
1868:
1862:
1859:
1854:
1850:
1843:
1802:
1712:
1708:
1703:
1662:
1657:
1652:
1648:
1634:
1623:
1604:
1599:
1529:
1523:
1518:
1487:
1479:NativeForeigner
1467:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1390:
1383:
1361:
1351:
1339:
1328:
1327:
1314:
1302:
1291:
1290:
1270:
1228:
1218:
1178:
1145:
1125:
1105:
1092:
1076:
1063:
1055:
1052:
1036:
1000:
965:
929:
877:
864:DARTH SIDIOUS 2
851:
843:
840:
818:
782:Baseball Digest
762:
725:
710:
703:
696:
694:
677:
670:
655:
637:
615:
601:
594:
587:
585:
573:
563:
558:
553:
527:
491:
470:
469:RfA/RfB toolbox
467:
437:
409:
357:
340:
336:
281:article history
231:edit I made to
145:
123:
113:
97:
80:
66:
60:
55:
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2014:
2012:
2004:
2003:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1987:
1969:
1943:
1929:
1913:
1892:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1820:
1791:
1774:
1770:
1764:
1755:
1736:
1719:
1694:
1671:
1645:
1630:
1611:
1577:
1555:
1537:
1510:
1491:
1483:
1474:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1419:
1399:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1359:
1352:The Utahraptor
1279:
1278:
1277:
1257:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1226:
1219:The Utahraptor
1198:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1059:
917:is. Further,
895:
876:
873:
872:
871:
855:
847:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
755:
740:
718:
684:
662:
647:
646:
645:
644:
614:
611:
610:
609:
578:
571:
564:The Utahraptor
555:
554:
552:
551:
546:
541:
535:
533:
529:
528:
526:
525:
520:
515:
510:
505:
499:
497:
493:
492:
490:
489:
484:
478:
476:
472:
471:
468:
466:
465:
458:
451:
443:
436:
433:
419:
418:
417:
415:
406:
342:The Utahraptor
335:
332:
330:
328:
327:
326:
325:
313:
306:
305:
304:
303:
262:
255:
254:
253:
252:
215:
214:
213:
212:
182:
181:
180:
179:
144:
141:
140:
139:
121:
114:The Utahraptor
83:The Utahraptor
79:
76:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2013:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1996:
1986:
1982:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1965:
1960:
1955:
1950:
1944:
1942:
1939:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1920:
1914:
1912:
1908:
1901:on this one.
1900:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1877:
1871:
1865:
1857:
1848:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1819:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1799:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1762:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1740:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1711:
1706:
1698:
1695:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1666:
1665:
1660:
1655:
1646:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1638:
1631:
1629:
1626:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1595:
1594:This outburst
1590:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1532:
1526:
1521:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1423:
1420:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1395:
1393:
1388:
1386:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1365:
1362:
1356:
1354:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1315:Access Denied
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1273:
1271:Access Denied
1267:
1266:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:Peter Karlsen
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1223:
1221:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1176:
1172:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1093:Access Denied
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
996:
992:
989:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
961:
957:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
882:
879:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
865:
859:
856:
854:
850:
846:
837:
834:
828:
825:
823:
822:
816:are citable.
815:
814:
809:
808:
803:
802:
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
778:Time Magazine
775:
770:
769:
768:
765:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
741:
739:
736:
734:
732:
731:
730:
722:
719:
717:
713:
708:
706:
701:
699:
698:Allmightyduck
692:
688:
685:
683:
680:
675:
673:
666:
663:
661:
658:
656:Access Denied
652:
649:
648:
643:
640:
638:Access Denied
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
616:
612:
608:
604:
599:
597:
592:
590:
589:Allmightyduck
583:
579:
577:
574:
568:
566:
560:
559:
550:
547:
545:
542:
540:
537:
536:
534:
530:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
500:
498:
494:
488:
485:
483:
480:
479:
477:
473:
464:
459:
457:
452:
450:
445:
444:
441:
434:
432:
431:
429:
425:
416:
412:
407:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
363:
360:
356:
353:
350:
347:
343:
338:
337:
333:
331:
324:
321:
320:
317:
314:
312:
308:
307:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
257:
256:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
220:
217:
216:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
190:
189:
187:
184:
183:
176:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
155:
153:
150:
149:
148:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
124:
118:
116:
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
100:
98:Access Denied
94:
91:
88:
84:
77:
75:
74:
73:
69:
63:
58:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1976:UltraExactZZ
1971:
1931:
1894:
1852:
1846:
1822:
1793:
1776:
1757:
1746:book burning
1738:
1721:
1701:
1696:
1673:
1649:
1636:
1635:
1583:
1579:
1558:
1539:
1512:
1497:
1493:
1477:
1421:
1401:
1391:
1384:
1374:
1330:
1329:
1293:
1292:
1281:
1242:
1179:— Preceding
1127:
1126:
944:
910:
906:
897:
880:
862:
861:
857:
835:
820:
819:
811:
805:
799:
757:
728:
727:
726:
720:
704:
697:
686:
671:
664:
650:
618:
595:
588:
421:
420:
398:
392:
386:
380:
374:
368:
361:
354:
348:
329:
322:
315:
290:
277:this article
264:
224:
218:
197:Did you Know
191:
185:
157:
151:
146:
110:
107:
89:
81:
52:
51:
46:
34:
28:
1918:Airplaneman
1243:temporarily
953:the source,
745:Mkativerata
549:User rights
539:CentralAuth
273:Mkativerata
260:Mkativerata
1937:P. D. Cook
1805:HairedGirl
1624:iridescent
1557:Reluctant
1545:Epeefleche
919:nominating
915:plagiarism
532:Cross-wiki
523:AfD closes
435:Discussion
78:Nomination
1904:Victorian
1748:license.
1726:Hipocrite
1589:detention
582:talk page
518:AfD votes
513:BLP edits
384:block log
285:talk page
1995:Category
1813:contribs
1713:Chequers
1485:Contribs
1360:Contribs
1227:Contribs
1204:Townlake
1193:contribs
1181:unsigned
911:Newsweek
774:Newsweek
729:Mr. R00t
572:Contribs
496:Analysis
475:Counters
352:contribs
311:Lambanog
122:Contribs
93:contribs
1972:Neutral
1932:Neutral
1895:Neutral
1847:Neutral
1841:Neutral
1827:Hokeman
1763:Special
1684:Vodello
1600:Beloved
1597:here.--
1563:WP:GOCE
1331:Goodvac
1294:Goodvac
1146:Georgia
1106:Georgia
1077:Georgia
1037:Georgia
1001:Georgia
966:Georgia
930:Georgia
858:Support
836:Support
786:Vodello
763:Diannaa
758:Support
721:Support
687:Support
665:Support
653:as nom
651:Support
619:Support
613:Support
359:deleted
178:policy.
1948:Derild
1906:Mutant
1823:Oppose
1809:(talk)
1794:Oppose
1777:Oppose
1758:Oppose
1739:Oppose
1722:Oppose
1697:Oppose
1674:Oppose
1559:Oppose
1540:Oppose
1519:Minima
1513:Oppose
1494:Oppose
1422:Oppose
1402:Oppose
1375:Oppose
1282:Oppose
1174:later.
1071:WP:SIG
958:, and
898:Oppose
881:Oppose
875:Oppose
780:, and
691:WP:AIV
672:Ronk01
482:XTools
295:WP:BLP
175:WP:RPP
166:WP:UAA
162:WP:AIV
56:Minima
1803:Brown
1781:Aiken
1768:Cases
1709:Spiel
1658:COMMS
1653:ƒETCH
1637:f o x
1605:Freak
1580:Opose
1239:WP:RS
1144:Sandy
1128:f o x
1104:Sandy
1075:Sandy
1035:Sandy
999:Sandy
964:Sandy
928:Sandy
821:f o x
424:civil
366:count
275:, at
33:that
16:<
1855:MC10
1831:talk
1798:WP:V
1785:talk
1730:talk
1724:Q4.
1704:Ϣere
1688:talk
1571:talk
1549:talk
1530:talk
1504:talk
1499:Cirt
1446:talk
1431:talk
1413:talk
1385:ROUX
1340:talk
1303:talk
1286:This
1261:Mono
1251:talk
1208:talk
1189:talk
1151:Talk
1139:WP:V
1111:Talk
1082:Talk
1056:ToMe
1053:Talk
1042:Talk
1024:talk
1006:Talk
995:WP:V
985:WP:V
971:Talk
945:much
935:Talk
907:Time
889:talk
885:Gigs
844:ToMe
841:Talk
813:PSM3
810:and
790:talk
749:talk
678:talk
627:talk
411:here
396:rfar
378:logs
346:talk
283:and
269:here
249:this
241:this
237:bite
229:this
205:this
133:talk
87:talk
67:talk
1981:Did
1811:• (
1409:Pby
1406:Str
1020:Pby
1017:Str
921:an
801:NME
402:spi
372:AfD
1997::
1958:21
1953:49
1875:GB
1833:)
1787:)
1732:)
1690:)
1584:is
1573:)
1551:)
1533:)
1506:)
1459:Hi
1448:)
1433:)
1415:)
1343:)
1306:)
1253:)
1210:)
1191:•
1153:)
1113:)
1084:)
1044:)
1026:)
1008:)
973:)
951:,
937:)
909:,
891:)
804:,
792:)
776:,
751:)
629:)
584:.
390:lu
323:A:
316:5.
291:A:
265:4.
225:A:
219:3.
192:A:
186:2.
158:A:
152:1.
135:)
70:)
37:.
1978:~
1963:☼
1923:✈
1884:)
1881:L
1878:•
1872:•
1869:C
1866:•
1863:T
1860:(
1851:—
1829:(
1815:)
1783:(
1728:(
1686:(
1663:/
1650:/
1569:(
1547:(
1527:(
1524:c
1502:(
1482:/
1468:8
1465:7
1462:8
1444:(
1429:(
1411:(
1392:₪
1357:/
1337:(
1300:(
1249:(
1224:/
1206:(
1187:(
1149:(
1109:(
1080:(
1061:c
1040:(
1022:(
1004:(
969:(
933:(
887:(
849:c
807:Q
788:(
747:(
705:
625:(
596:
569:/
462:e
455:t
448:v
414:.
404:)
399:·
393:·
387:·
381:·
375:·
369:·
362:·
355:·
349:·
344:(
131:(
119:/
90:·
85:(
64:(
61:c
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.