Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Uncle G

875:. Not to do somehow doesn't seem in the spirit of openness and transparency that I feel administrators should promote, especially regarding themselves. And it seems unprofessional. I also am concerned that Uncle G made no effort here to address this concern or even to explain why he thought it was irrelevant. Administrators should be sensitive to concerns regarding their behavior. However, I understand his lack of comment, as from his answer to question 1 and his comment on Radiant's talk page, it appears that adminship is not something he strongly wants nor is it very helpful to the types of activities he normally does. Of course, some would argue that the best administrators are those who aren't crazy about pursuing adminship, but between my perceived lack of benefit to him and the lack of a user page, it's enough to push me to oppose. If Uncle G wishes to stand out from everyone else, he is free to make his signature red or whatever he likes. — 1354:

has connotations of "new"-ness. Uncle G is more than welcome to make his signature a red, non-working link if he likes, but it is still useful to browse the Special pages with the color-- not as a sole qualification of quality, but as an extra indicator. However, if it were just for the blank page, I would have abstained for the vote; it is really Uncle G's intransigence and lack of transparency in this matter that leads me to believe that he is not currently suited to be a good Administrator. At the very least, Uncle G should make this philosophy clear at the top of his talk page, as it has come up as a question several times (with several people "mistakenly" creating a page for him, requiring him to list it on CAT:CSD, disrupting operations further). I see Uncle G's lack of a page as an operational nuisance, it has caused confusion and all of this commotion on the Knowledge (XXG)... all so that Uncle G can feel special. Cheers. --

1881:. I don't keep lists of things that I've contributed to because I believe that the edit histories are adequate, and indeed better, for that. And I'm not sure that I can give you a list of things that I've been "pleased" about. However, if what you actually want is a set of examples of where I've edited articles, then I can supply a few picked pretty much arbitrarily, in no particular order and with no particular implications. I've not included any articles that I've touched as part of New Page Patrol. You're better off looking at 1053:, as he certainly has the right not to have one, and doesn't seems in any way to have sought adminship; but nontheless, I would be uncomfortable with an admin without one (as it'd preclude identifying himself as one, which I feel ought to be if not a formal requirement, then at least a general expectation). I'd also be in any event disinclined to actively support without some stronger statement on performing admin tasks (again, understandable in an "unsought" nomination, and not a reflection on him as an editor in any respect). 1131:. When I was a new user who was trying to do the right thing by speedying certain articles, he made comments that came across as curt and a little condescending. I won't debate whether his comments were correct, but I still feel that his approach was inconsistent with the attitude I would expect to see from an Admin (such behaviour greatly increases the risk of bad reactions from both valid contributors and vandals). If he could prove that this flaw no longer exists, then in all other aspects he seems fine. 1500:

twice above, that new users will be confused when they click on an admin's name and see the page creation screen. As I said above, I think even having just a redirect to the talk page would help avoid confusion on the part of new users. I even indicated that though I prefer an admin have a user page, I would have quite likely changed my vote if he had just made it a redirect to his talk page. Instead of acknowledging what I said, he chose to respond as you see below.

827:

that EVERY user create a user page, our admins should definitely be expected to support the best practices on wikipedia, and I believe that a user page is one of those practices. His refusal to even create a nominal user page is troubling, indicates a stubbornness to a degree that is inadvisable when dealing with admin powers, and seems almost like a disruption of wikipedia to prove a point. I hate to do it but i'm going to have to oppose. --

1700:, and by its nature self-professed. I have my own web sites out in the Big Wide World (It seems rather ironic to be referring to the World Wide Web like that, given that there is a Big Wide World outside of it, too. ☺), where I publish my own articles, with no Knowledge (XXG) restrictions, and could have reams of autobiography to my heart's content. I don't have such personal data on those, either. (Having been around on Internet for ... 792:) lead me to believe he rewrote sections from sources, not that what he was removing stuff because it was copied from sources. Frankly, from the way he handled the issues with his user page (by CSDing it) and the examples he selected from his contributions, I don't think this person really cares if he's admin or not. We have enough admins as it is, we don't need to force it on people who are hemming and hawwing about it. -- 1150:. The lack of userpage is no big deal for me, but Uncle G is being quite rebarbative and quick to take offense in some of his responses on this very page. I do like to see admins ready to assume good faith, and to work towards defusing rather than escalating or even initiating quarrels, especially on their RfA page (considering that that is the one time and place people are likely to be as nice as they know how). 1307:"The correct solution to what you describe is for people to un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages, just as they should un-learn the similar false inference that they make about contributions from anonymous users. (Some people falsely infer that anonymity brings bad faith, but anonymous users make thousands of good-faith edits to Knowledge (XXG) every day.)" 973:. Clearly Uncle G doesn't accept community consensus, because he still refuses to create a userpage. To me, the arrogance of not listening to the community is worse than not having a userpage. And, in turn, it's not the lack of a userpage that bothers me as much as the red link and its implications on Recent Changes, votes, polls, and other such things. It's disruptive and it wastes everyone's time. 1395:. I also note that it is currently protected, in response to that one edit. Does your protecting your user page qualify as "stubborn" and "intransigent"? Are you saying that the act of keeping their user page they way that they want it to be, just as you have, should prohibit someone from being an administrator because administrators shouldn't be "stubborn" and "intransigent" like that? 1508:

how they would be confused if another user had one. Secondly, it has been suggested that the administrator must present a "face" to the community. I find that having a user page saying "Hi!" is hardly better than having no user page at all. Consider the user pages of present administrators, for example. In fact, let us only consider those administrators whose usernames start with "A."

568:. I say this with all due respect to those who oppose the nomination. The nominee is clearly not an opportunist: Despite knowing that much of the opposition will cease if he creates a user page, he continues not to have one. This behavior indicates that Uncle G would probably not change his personal view merely to obtain more votes. -- 108: 867:. I hate to do this, but the more I think about it the more it bothers me. Administrators must interact with the community and a user page is part of the face one presents. It need not be complex (mine was two short sentences for months), but administrators are trusted members with additional abilities and I feel they should make 157:- I've recently worked pretty closely with Uncle G on tranwikification of articles to Wiktionary, and he's very level headed and a great contributor to Knowledge (XXG). People who oppose Uncle G because he doesn't have a user page need to "...un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages...". 1759:, that I didn't fulfil. Absence of mailbox causes procedural problems, since it prevents blocked users from contacting the blocking administrator. As such, I've un-checked the "Disable e-mail from other users" checkbox in my preferences to fulfil that requirement. (As at Wiktionary, I ask you to please use 1466:

a scholarly dissertation or an embarassment. I don't see what the problem is in Uncle G creating a user page for the purpose of letting those who visit if he were an admin know who they're talking to without having to read through all his Wikiworks. It seems to be that his verbose explanations of why he

1715:

them about myself. (They do know me - I've been cited here and there.) The same applies here, in the microcosms that are Knowledge (XXG), Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and so forth. You know me through my editing record; which speaks more accurately than I could in any case. (The automatic record

1541:

having a user page can hardly constitute disruption. Fourthly, it has been suggested that Uncle G is not respecting "community consensus" by failing to obtain a user page. This point is absurd: there is no clear consensus that he should get a user page, as 2/3 of the voters have supported him so far.

1507:

I wish to point out, with all due respect, that I find most of the objections above to be rather trivial. Firstly, it is argued that the lack of a user page will "confuse" newer users. I feel constrained to ask how this would happen. All new users presumably begin with blank user pages; I fail to see

1465:

I don't see that this nomination will "obviously" fail. It is on the low end of the "gray zone" and awaiting one of the other bureaucrats to return to make a decision. I don't see the point in criticizing other users who do have user pages. The User Page reveals something about the user whether it is

1353:

Alright, I'm not going to make a crusade out of this or anything, I just want to explain my vote. While I understand Uncle G's burning need to establish some unique sense of identity on this big confusing wiki, a blank user page is not the appropriate way to do it. Like it or not, a blank user page

1340:

I don't really see the problem here. People have all sorts of funky signatures, and Uncle G's happens to be a redlink. People have all sorts of funky user pages, including jokes, medals, pictures and whatever, and while most have some relevant content, this is not a prerequisite; Uncle G's happens to

904:

not to have one. That is because admins are the public face of Knowledge (XXG) and where others turn for help and advice. It is not a good thing for an admin to not have a user page that at least announces that he/she is an admin and expresses the admin's commitment (or lack thereof) to engaging the

730:

Uncle G exceeds all material requirements for an admin. We do not expect nor do we require admins to be yesmen, or to toe the party line for matters unrelated to their ability to function as an admin. That a missing userpage complicates RC monitoring is a sign we need to improve our software and not

1536:

all have effectively empty userpages, except for lists of contributions. Certainly, there seems to be no problem with these individuals presenting or not presenting "faces." Thirdly, there is the objection that the RC patrol will be harmed. Presumably, those who regularly patrol Recent Changes will

1457:

Well, this nomination is obviously going to fail now, and from the looks of it, any subsequent nominations will probably fail too. A real shame if you ask me. Especially considering most user pages (whether they belong to admins or not) are nothing but an annotated version of the contributions page

1287:

OK, After slogging through his talk archives, I'm piecing together that he has a personal philosophy about people's preconceived notions about people without user pages. However, in this case, they were true. It was extremely inconvenient for me not to see a User page, and I had to go through all

686:

Neither can I -- in other words, he's showing good faith (or at least an absence of bad faith) by not doing that (unlike, say, another failed candidate for adminship, who, after having announced his conclusion that he should replace his bad attitude with hypocrisy, changed his name to a smarmy one,

1611:

who also do not have user pages. This heuristic is faulty, and I invite those who use it to (for example) do Recent Changes patrol on Wiktionary (Wiktionary can always use more RC patrollers.), where many users even of long standing have no user pages. I further ask those people to stop requesting

895:

With great sadness I feel I have to oppose this nomination, which also means I will not decide on this nomination, leaving it to another bureaucrat's discretion. I say "with great sadness" because Uncle G seems like a fine, decent and principled editor. However, I feel that it sets a bad precedent

826:

for now. I originally thought that the lack of a user page wasn't a big deal, but it's starting to bug me. Though I don't like to support broad generalizations, it is useful to distinguish between red names and blue names when going through my Watchlist or "Recent Changes". While I don't expect

783:

was disappointing, to put it mildy. It seemed he purposely took comments out of context to make himself look right, and his stubborness to continually delete his user page is pathetic. If Uncle G wants to be independant/special/wild card/free spirit/whatever, then great; he can continue being that

1728:

these projects is through discussions and edit histories. To see why a user page is irrelevant to that latter "face" consider that I could have the spiffiest user page in the world, and it wouldn't help improve my image if I had widespread and uniformly negative contributions elsewhere. (If you

1499:

Uncle G has responded here (finally) to the user page question, and I have to say, sadly, I now strongly oppose. It isn't the user page--that's just one tool to communicate with other editors. It's the whole pattern of communication here. He has still not responded to my specific concern, stated

1649:

of attempting to establish an identity, as is the fact that, this page and its special circumstances aside, I use the default signature with no customization. If I wanted to "establish an identity", connecting my edits here to a real world person that you could throw tomatoes at, I would use an

1602:

I have long held that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Knowledge (XXG) every day. Indeed, I was exactly such an anonymous user for quite a while. I only became pseudonymous largely because of the

1063:

due to lack of user page. I respect Uncle G's right not to have a user page and his desire to be judged on his contributions alone, but when weighing up whether users should be given admin powers I need to know more about the candidate. I would extend that to those who deliberately have obscure

1404:

I don't really have a problem with his signature having a red link; he could do that with font tags as far as I'm concerned. It is precisely because the lack of a user page gives an air of mystery that I am opposed to it for an administrator. For typical users, no problem—if they wish to stay

74:

My goodness, look what has happened whilst I've been busy elsewhere! As I said on Wiktionary, if I had been nominated earlier, I would have declined, on the grounds that you simply wouldn't have had enough edit history to look at. I think that there's enough for that to be no longer a

671:

Perhaps you should read back what you just wrote: "he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page." I doubt he thinks that way. I couldn't imagine a greater expression of bad faith. --

962:

Oppose. Lack of a userpage is inconsiderate for anyone given the time it wastes for people on RC patrol. If someone doesn't want to be an admin, that's their choice. For an admin, a voluntary postion to be part of the visible face of Knowledge (XXG), its unnaceptable. -

993:

for now, and I do so reluctantly. From what I've seen of Uncle G's edits he's a good contributor an' all, but it's hard enough to form an impression of the people we're working with when we are all interacting pseudonymously over the internet even when they

1581:

I was originally going to add this along with my other answers, but decided not to. I've largely left this discussion alone, because, as I've said before, I think that it's up to the rest of you to make this decision. However, I think that some things need

1546:

ultimately lead to organizational paralysis or administrative atrophy. It hardly has any effect at all. Thus, I implore the users who object, with all the earnestness at my command, not to object, at least on the grounds of a lack of a user page. --

1020:. It's fine for editors to contribute without a user page, but it's not fine for admins. It rather seems like a policeman or any other official insisting on performing the job without wearing a uniform to identify himself properly. Uncle G needs 558:. Trollslayer extrordinaire who is a vital part of VfD. Also, he's left one of the most eloquent and even-handed statements I've ever read over on SamuraiClinton's RfC page. Just get a user page. Become the "blue Uncle" we know you can be. - 1391:, your user page, for you. If other people edited it to contain something that you didn't want, would you change it back to how you wanted it? How strong would your resistance be? Would that be "stubborn" and "intransigent"? I note that you 923:

I am afraid that the only interaction I have had with this user resulted in his descending into a rant at me for not having read through several long discussion pages. I am not certain he is of sufficient mentality to have this distinction.

55:

Very knowledgeable 'pedian, and has been doing a lot of excellent organizational work to the Wiki, particularly with the Transwiki-to-Wiktionary process. Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users. (4982 edits)

1009:

I read Uncle G's lengthy explanation below and it, by itself, is enough for me to vote no. I can appreciate the fight against the stigma of a blank user page, but the fact of the matter is that it does make things easier for other people.

660:

created one, given the obvious fact that he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page. Good sense of both independence and honor there.

656:. The lack of a user page is quirky, and probably an error in judgement, but I don't see any other evidence that Uncle G would be anything other than a good and helpful administrator. I actually admire the fact that Uncle G has 1606:

I also similarly hold that it is a false inference to assume that someone without a user page is someone who has "been on for a week" or is "a vandal with a user name". I disprove that latter hypothesis by my existence, as do

998:

user pages. Admins, I feel, should present a face to the community. Even if he were to create a fairly uninformative or out of date user page like mine or countless others' it would at least be an improvement on a red link. —

815:

To me not having a user page marks you as someone who has been on for a week or a vandal with a user name. I patrol the new pages list a lot, and I mostly check the pages of people with no user page of no user name.

1328:

There aren't any "archives" to "slog through". I haven't archived my talk page. It's all there, right back to the beginning (minus conversations moved to other talk pages and modulo a failed idea in refactoring).

611:. I note that many of the oppose votes are caused by the lack of a user page; while this is unusual, it is not grounds to decline adminship. Uncle G's enabling of his email shows he is responsive to fair comment.- 1288:

of your old discussions to figure out why you don't have one. At the very least, if you love that red link so much, just create a note at the top of your talk page explaining why you don't have a user page. --

1196:

Although his contributions are very good, I, too, am a little thrown by the lack of a user page. Red names are usually red flags for new users, which is not an association one wants made with administrators. –

888:. The lack of a user page troubles me. There isn't of course a rule that having one is mandatory for an admin, but at the same time, that this user lacks one gives me enough pause to oppose this nomination. 1537:

quickly get accustomed to the regular users: and they will certainly soon know that Uncle G would not vandalize. Consequently, I do not find that their efforts would be forced to endure any obstacles at all.

487::) A user who reminds us all that one should not judge a contributor from the colo(u)r of hir user page link. This red link is a "face to the community" - albeit not a standard one. Who said it had to be? 764:

17:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC) Or create at least a redirect to the talk page. For an admin to have no user page at all would be confusing to new users, and I respectfully don't agree that is a trivial thing.

529:

Boatloads of good work, and the lack of a user page (until forced) was more than fine, suggesting that vanity doesn't override decisions. (and nice workaround to the "problem" now that I look closer :)

425:

My frugal use of that tool may well be indicative of my use of other tools. However, I do specifically say "frugal", not "nonexistent". Here's an unbroken series of edits that I marked as minor:

1488:

in a rather broad sense, non pejorative; I love when users have witty and original personal pages, but I still consider "most user pages" to be quite trivial, when you look at it objectively.

1730: 1223:

Uncle G currently has 4989 total edits: 2946/150 to articles/talk, 1698/35 to Knowledge (XXG)/talk, 19/84 to User/talk, 26/16 to Template/talk, 10/4 to Category/talk, and 1 to Image. —

974: 1173:, however, has no user page, which looks unprofessional for an administrator. I will change to support if this is rectified, even with so little as a redirect to his talk page. — 1484:

Maybe I haven't been around long enough, but it was my experience that usually bureaucrats don't take it on themselves to promote a user with a 30:10 oppose ratio. Also, I mean

1542:

Finally, I wish to note that having or not having a user page is no reflection at all on fitness to be an administrator. The failure of one individual to have a user page will

236:. I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker. I think the lack of a userpage is irrelevant because he can slap something on in less than a few seconds. 2063: 2140:

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 will deal with it in the future?

1848:. I'd have been able to muck in and help. I suspect that I would probably continue largely as I have been, and simply chip in as and when similar such situations arise. 1383:. You talk of "intransigence" and "stubbornness" because I have requested the pages that others have written to be deleted. I suspect that you haven't borne in mind what 718:

The quality of one's edits and work here on the Knowledge (XXG) should determine if one should be an admin, not just a simple user page. Maybe he likes the color red?

47: 1696:

Everything else — pictures of me, an autobiography of my life, information about where I went to school and where I live, lists of my hobbies and interests — is

544:-- Good editor, knowledgeable of policies, already involved in various areas of cleanup. I would feel comfortable handing him the keys to the janitor closet. 2037: 1745: 1740:

You may of course come to a consensus that having a user page is a requirement for administrators. In which case, I suggest that you list that requirement on

769:

19:24, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) The main reason I now strongly oppose is not the user page but the whole pattern and style of communication. See the comments below.

2191: 1844:

when xe brought this up, the only time in the past that I can think of where administrator tools would have been a benefit was when the backlog built up at

1716:

is always going to be equal to or better than any manual record.) The "face that I present" to the world from these WikiMedia projects is an article on

1827: 784:

way as a regular editor. The contributions he selected for the answer section below are underwhelming. His edit summaries of "Rewritten from sources" (

1892: 760:. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. If this user creates one, I will almost certainly change my vote. 101:

Sometimes, I find User G's comments on his talk page elliptical enough that they could end in "Grasshopper", but...everyone needs a friendly uncle.

2007: 1770:. I'm not a professional encyclopaedist. (I suspect that if I were, I'd probably be contractually prohibited from being here in the first place.) 806:

rewritten from sources", and yes, they were rewrites from sources. Hence the "References" sections, citing sources, that appear in both rewrites.

591:. Will he misuse admin powers? I strongly doubt it based on what I've seen of him and on the endorsements above, and that's good enough for me. 1661:

both choose not to tell you what their actual names are, so too do I. My "identity" to these WikiMedia projects is my contribution history, and

2026: 1681:

am, on his own user page answers that question of himself by pointing to his contribution history, a rather marked double standard.) It's the

632:. Frankly, I'm stunned that so many people are opposing simply because Uncle G doesn't have the equivalent of "Hi! My name is: Uncle G" -- 1075:. A simple redirect to his talk would take care of a very annoying red link. I echo Neutrality's comments especially, as well as Dbiv's. 2016: 1741: 17: 1622:

creating a page is "disruption of wikipedia to prove a point". If that were the case, then there are hundreds of millions of people

227: 114:

In the interactions I've had with Uncle G, I can't remember a single instance where I've thought his conduct less than exemplary.

363:

I have accepted his reason for having no userpage. Uncle G is level headed and helpful, and we need more such administrators.

2146:. Oh gosh, yes. I doubt that anyone reaching this number of contributions will not have. It's not exactly dealing with it, 1748:(which currently sport no indication whatever of such a rule or such a standard) so that we don't waste effort in the future. 2150:, but having so much to do does mean that I cannot sit all day inching towards the 3 Revert Rule on a single article. ☺ I 601:, I don't think the user page is a big deal, and that seems to be the only oposition to his promotion, he is a good editor-- 1797:

A brilliant and thoughtful answer. Reason in itself to confer a distinction that is "no big deal". This attitude should be

2173: 2129: 1924: 1882: 1859: 1783: 1470:

have a user page are as self-absorbed and self-revealing as all of us who do. And, as I said, it sets a bad precedent. --

86: 2113:) — I know very little about "Furries" and have never used the word. The original was a copyright violation, by the way. 1372: 1875:

Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

2159: 780: 501:, from what I've seen over there he'd make a great admin here. Not having a user page is of no practical consequence. 1823: 2073: 144:

22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC). Good editor, manages to proceed through the minefields of VfD without becoming sullied.

1413: 879: 2047: 1697: 1358: 1292: 1281: 831: 308:, hey, it's my nomination. I'd create a redirect from his userpage to his talk page if people think that'd help. 1630:, all of whom are "disrupting" it. The notion that not creating something here is disruption is patently silly. 578:. Uncle G comes across as patient, fair-minded and good at explaining things. I think he'll be good with a mop. 1987: 1920: 1916: 936: 1169:

Always level-headed in my experience (my main admin criterion), and a sadly uncommon voice of sanity on VfD.

1711:

People know me out in the Big Wide World through my published works and what I do, not through what I merely

618:

Uncle G has now linked to his explanation below from the top of his talk page, which is good enough for me. —

418:

checkbox sometimes (the one on the left, single click is enough, really) to give hint to people on RC check.

2052: 1201: 2057: 1763:

rather than electronic mail for contacting me.) Absence of a user page causes no such procedural problems.

942: 340: 2155: 1410: 876: 738:

Support. I don't feel that the issue of a lack of a userpage should make or break Uncle G's adminship.

582: 286: 224: 1319:

And what about the new users who want to find out who this admin is, are are confused by a blank page?

1186:

I am sure Uncle G could become a fine administrator, but I would like to see him get a userpage first.

404:

Would be a shame for this nomination to fail for reasons as trivial as someone not having a user page.

687:

always prepending it with a smiley face, apparently of the opinion that RfA voters are WAY stupid.) --

1686: 1654: 1640: 1615: 1388: 1355: 1289: 1278: 1245:

when, a) he has not yet indicated if he even accepts the nomination, b) he has not yet completed the

1235: 956: 828: 742: 419: 2068: 1997: 1952: 1896: 1756: 1737:

whose user pages meet the criteria for adminstratorship that some have espoused over the past week.)

975:

We're here to build an encylopedia and be part of a wiki community, not to make an ideological point

817: 1082: 1003: 707: 1141: 2044:

These articles, although outside of Knowledge (XXG), might also be informative as corroboration:

1548: 1529: 1475: 1344: 1277:

now? He mentions "as explained before" but I don't see a record of this previous indication. --

1210: 1198: 1155: 914: 691: 677: 665: 645: 569: 535: 398: 357: 350: 311: 299: 59: 905:

community and perhaps state those areas where s/he feels s/he can be most helpful. Therefore, I

838: 276: 1733:. I'm not going to be specific, as per the provoking banned users rule, but there are several 1724:, and as such is entirely egoless. The "face that I present" to other Knowledge (XXG) editors 955:. Having an empty user page is not good. I find the explanation for that below unsatisfactory. 2167: 2123: 1942: 1853: 1777: 1760: 1313: 1302: 1265: 1254: 549: 241: 175: 158: 80: 27: 1766:

Finally: For those who are referring to "professionalism", I simply point out that I do this

1992: 1912: 1717: 1670: 1658: 1633:

Xe also talks of "establish some unique sense of identity". But that is precisely what I'm

1521: 1501: 1341:

be blank (which does give an air of mystery). I do believe actions speak louder than words.

1320: 1228: 1178: 1100: 931: 770: 766: 761: 623: 579: 280: 254: 189: 1685:

when it comes to making decisions about whether and how I can do things here. I thank both

1822:

What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about

1802: 1132: 1011: 984: 841: 739: 602: 592: 381: 327: 168: 148: 141: 1845: 1755:

requirement that administrators have working electronic mailboxes, pointed out to me by

1612:

that the world change to match their faulty heuristic, rather than the other way around.

1437: 188:

I'd go neutral because of the lack of a userpage, but Uncle G is a very hard worker. --

131:, good contributor who works well with others. Userpage doesn't bother me in the least. 1977: 1187: 1076: 1000: 789: 702: 559: 368: 364: 337: 115: 1209:

Would like to see the user get a user page, and answer the questions before deciding.

2185: 1967: 1841: 1513: 1471: 1342: 1151: 1124: 910: 889: 785: 732: 719: 688: 673: 662: 639: 633: 531: 394: 346: 309: 266: 102: 57: 980:

If Uncle G simply redirects his userpage to his user talk page, then I would support

2163: 2119: 1947: 1849: 1773: 1566: 1533: 1449: 1433: 1426: 1422: 1396: 1330: 1309: 1261: 1250: 1170: 807: 612: 545: 508: 472: 237: 182: 122: 76: 2098: 2106: 2094: 1690: 1525: 1517: 1224: 1174: 1104: 1029: 964: 926: 793: 619: 520: 502: 251: 250:. Surely, there are more useful reasons for opposition than lacking a userpage? 519:- Good contributions and there is nothing wrong with not having a user page. - 2102: 2090: 1751:

Such a requirement would, of course, not be on technical grounds. There is a

1555: 1509: 1489: 1459: 1249:

below, and c) therefore, has not yet considered about making a user page yet.

488: 405: 378: 324: 145: 138: 1129:"Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users." 1064:

userpages. Perhaps it should be a requirement for Admins to have user pages.

2110: 2086: 1888: 1065: 1054: 334: 1729:

still don't get the point, go and look at the pretty user pages of some of

1603:

convenience of not having my edits confused with other customers of my ISP.

1347: 314: 62: 2082: 2078: 1906: 1939:. There's still more to do here. So again, "pleased" doesn't quite fit. 498: 132: 35: 1049:

Similarly, I'm concerned by the lack of a user page. Well, not so much

1982: 1405:

mysterious, that's fine with me. But I feel administrators should be a

1274: 1123:

on the grounds that I cannot agree with the following comment made by

2032: 2022: 1962: 174:

Support. User pages are nice trivialities, not anything essential. -

2060:— a fine counterexample to the notion that editors own news articles 1708:

to publish such things, not on my own web sites, let alone on here.)

107: 1595:. I don't have a user page very probably for the same reasons that 167:. a careful user. all this "get a user-page" mumbo-jumbo is silly. 1957: 1441: 1260:

He can essentially slap on a userpage in less than a few seconds.

1234:

Question: since when is user page more important than one's work?

2064:

Wikinews:UK Chancellor of the Exchequer makes 2005 Budget speech

2012: 2002: 1972: 1902: 1721: 1099:. He does not have a user page; also please see his comments on 701:

I'll support him for the same reason others were opposing me :)

38: 1936: 1932: 1895:

should explain why "pleased" is not the best word. Also see

1801:, not punished. How the place has gone wrong that it is not! 1371:

addressed on my talk page. Twice. It was also addressed on

1928: 1565:

I note that this vote is out of the gray zone, at 45/22/2.

70:

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

1814:

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1618:

puts forward the rather bizarre notion that the act of

1392: 1380: 1367:

commotion? I haven't seen any commotion. And this is

1305:

about a major reason why he does not have a user page:

800: 470: 468: 466: 464: 462: 460: 458: 456: 454: 452: 450: 448: 446: 444: 442: 440: 438: 436: 434: 432: 430: 428: 426: 46:

A discussion of the outcome of the vote is underway at

1840:

anything, not having planned for this. As I said to

1241:

I do not understand how people can immediately vote '

1637:

doing. "Uncle G" is, quite obviously, a pseudonym —

1445: 1653:But like many of you I use a a pseudonym. Just as 48:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

2038:Knowledge (XXG):Things to be moved to Wiktionary 1746:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Standards 871:effort to connect with the community by posting 1645:— and a lack of a user page is precisely the 497:. Although I mostly know this editor through 8: 1893:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Gado-gado 1742:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship#Rules 2008:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to Votes for deletion 731:a reason to punish valuable contributors.-- 181:Support - lack of a userpage is irrelevant 2154:haven't yet found the time to get back to 1458:or a collection of random buffooneries... 1387:would do if someone came along and edited 356:He's not evil, my requirements are met. -- 2027:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Dunlop 900:not to have a User Page as opposed to an 367:06:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Affirming vote. 1028:adminship to continue his great work. -- 2017:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Cleo 1273:I'm confused. Why is his User page on 265:. I thought he was already an admin. -- 2118:That's enough time spent on that. ☺ 1626:creating web pages on Knowledge (XXG) 1516:have blank or redirecting user pages. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 485:if I've enough contrib's to vote here 75:consideration. I therefore accept. 7: 2074:Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Categorization 1669:my contribution history. (Note that 345:Userpage objections are nonsense. — 2192:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 2048:Wikibooks:Guide to Windows commands 1731:the users that are currently banned 1677:how other users can determine who 1301:Here is what Uncle G wrote on his 779:. My experience with this user at 24: 1836:. Well, to be honest, I haven't 1589:Why do you not have a user page? 1071:Great contributor, but I have to 2053:Wikinews:Template:Prepared story 1683:only identity that truly matters 1373:Knowledge (XXG):Speedy deletions 781:Category talk:Move to Wiktionary 106: 2058:Wikinews:Pope John Paul II dies 1704:... a little while now, I know 1: 1925:Talk:Greek numerical prefixes 1883:Special:Contributions/Uncle G 34:final (45/22/2) ending 10:05 2069:Wikinews:Template:Ph:Editing 1897:Wikibooks:Cookbook:Gado-gado 1828:administrators' reading list 1757:Wiktionary:User:SemperBlotto 1247:Questions for the candidate, 1127:as part of the nomination - 2160:Talk:Walton Summit motorway 1574:Questions for the candidate 650:) 15:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 626:) 09:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 2208: 2176:) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) 2132:) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) 1862:) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) 1786:) 19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 1665:my contribution history. 1650:account in my actual name. 1361:01:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) 1350:22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) 1295:20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) 1284:20:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) 1231:) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) 1181:) 12:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) 414:. It would be nice to use 89:) 15:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) 1551:01:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1481:21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1462:09:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1429:17:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1393:recently reverted it here 1316:21:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1257:01:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1144:22:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 1117:20:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 1101:"Teenybopper"'s talk page 1043:04:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 1014:04:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 987:04:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 967:00:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 892:19:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) 834:20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) 796:02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 724:20:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) 683:17:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 668:15:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 523:20:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) 513:19:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) 505:11:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) 422:00:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 401:12:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) 330:16:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) 317:11:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) 302:11:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)\ 230:15:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 185:06:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 178:06:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 161:03:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 65:10:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) 1988:phonemic differentiation 1921:Latin numerical prefixes 1917:Greek numerical prefixes 1885:to get a feel for that. 1805:02:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1569:14:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1558:05:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1504:04:54, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC) 1492:08:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1452:19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 1416:07:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1399:19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 1333:19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 1323:22:16, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) 1268:22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1238:00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1158:00:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1135:20:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1093:19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1068:10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1057:06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1006:04:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 959:04:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) 949:14:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 920:07:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 882:07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 861:21:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 820:01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 810:19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 773:04:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC) 747:04:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 735:00:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 712:19:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 694:17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 636:14:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 615:08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 605:06:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 595:05:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 585:04:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 572:02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) 562:03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) 552:05:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 538:05:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 491:10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 475:19:12, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) 408:19:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 391:09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 371:07:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) 360:00:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 353:22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 342:19:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 292:02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 269:23:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 259:23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 244:22:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 171:05:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 155:Very Very Strong Support 151:22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) 135:14:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) 1693:for judging me upon it. 1213:18:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1206:13:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1190:13:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 125:11:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 118:11:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 111:10:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1438:Wiktionary:User:Paul G 2156:Talk:Bishop of Durham 1436:; and no relation to 1379:time that it came up 1299:For your information: 1409:more forthcoming. — 1389:User:DropDeadGorgias 971:VERY strongly oppose 909:this nomination. -- 799:The edit summary at 2099:Wiktionary:yiffable 1432:No, no relation to 2107:Wiktionary:yiffest 2095:Wiktionary:yiffing 1609:many other editors 1530:User:Aris Katsaris 267:Neigel von Teighen 2103:Wiktionary:yiffer 2091:Wiktionary:yiffed 1761:User talk:Uncle G 1720:or a sentence in 745: 486: 385: 257: 2199: 2111:Wiktionary:yiffy 2087:Wiktionary:yiffs 1993:Universal Genius 1927:, and also note 1913:numerical prefix 1718:Microsoft Pascal 1673:, whilst asking 1522:User:Andrew Yong 1421:Any relation to 1411:Knowledge Seeker 1115: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1032: 982: 945: 877:Knowledge Seeker 859: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 837:No user page. -- 743: 722: 710: 705: 648: 511: 484: 389: 386: 383: 255: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 110: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2182: 2181: 2162:, for example. 2083:Wiktionary:YIFF 2079:Wiktionary:yiff 1907:Wiktionary:NEET 1687:Pavel Vozenilek 1667:I want it to be 1655:DropDeadGorgias 1641:DropDeadGorgias 1616:DropDeadGorgias 1477:explains it all 1356:DropDeadGorgias 1290:DropDeadGorgias 1279:DropDeadGorgias 1236:Pavel Vozenilek 1112: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1030: 978: 957:Oleg Alexandrov 946: 941: 939: 934: 916:explains it all 857: 854: 851: 848: 845: 842: 829:DropDeadGorgias 720: 708: 703: 679:explains it all 646: 509: 420:Pavel Vozenilek 387: 382: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 199: 196: 193: 190: 31: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2205: 2203: 2195: 2194: 2184: 2183: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2076: 2071: 2066: 2061: 2055: 2050: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2035: 2030: 2020: 2010: 2005: 2000: 1998:Plant Explorer 1995: 1990: 1985: 1980: 1978:Emmett Ashford 1975: 1970: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1953:Lazaretto/Temp 1950: 1945: 1940: 1910: 1900: 1868: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1824:administrators 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1771: 1764: 1749: 1738: 1709: 1694: 1651: 1631: 1613: 1604: 1600: 1584: 1576: 1571: 1570: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1505: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1239: 1232: 1215: 1214: 1207: 1193: 1192: 1183: 1160: 1159: 1145: 1136: 1118: 1094: 1069: 1058: 1044: 1015: 1007: 988: 968: 960: 950: 940: 935: 930: 921: 893: 883: 862: 835: 821: 813: 812: 811: 790:Emmett Ashford 774: 749: 748: 736: 725: 713: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 651: 637: 627: 616: 606: 596: 586: 573: 566:Strong support 563: 553: 539: 524: 514: 506: 492: 478: 477: 476: 409: 402: 392: 372: 361: 354: 343: 331: 318: 303: 293: 270: 263:Strong support 260: 245: 231: 186: 179: 172: 162: 152: 136: 126: 119: 112: 93: 92: 91: 90: 53: 52: 30: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2204: 2193: 2190: 2189: 2187: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2077: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2054: 2051: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2043: 2039: 2036: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2006: 2004: 2001: 1999: 1996: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1981: 1979: 1976: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1968:Albert Mackey 1966: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1876: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1831: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698:autobiography 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1642: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1588: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1575: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1550: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1514:User:Arminius 1511: 1506: 1503: 1498: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1480: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1461: 1456: 1451: 1448:) either. ☺ 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1332: 1327: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1294: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1189: 1184: 1182: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1102: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1013: 1008: 1005: 1002: 997: 992: 989: 986: 981: 976: 972: 969: 966: 961: 958: 954: 951: 948: 944: 938: 933: 928: 922: 919: 917: 912: 908: 903: 899: 898:Administrator 894: 891: 887: 884: 881: 878: 874: 870: 866: 863: 860: 840: 836: 833: 830: 825: 822: 819: 814: 809: 805: 801: 798: 797: 795: 791: 787: 786:Albert Mackey 782: 778: 775: 772: 768: 763: 759: 756: 755: 754: 753: 746: 741: 737: 734: 729: 726: 723: 717: 714: 711: 706: 700: 693: 690: 685: 684: 682: 680: 675: 670: 669: 667: 664: 659: 655: 652: 649: 643: 642: 638: 635: 631: 628: 625: 621: 617: 614: 610: 607: 604: 600: 597: 594: 590: 587: 584: 581: 577: 574: 571: 567: 564: 561: 557: 554: 551: 547: 543: 540: 537: 533: 528: 525: 522: 518: 515: 512: 507: 504: 500: 496: 493: 490: 482: 479: 474: 471: 469: 467: 465: 463: 461: 459: 457: 455: 453: 451: 449: 447: 445: 443: 441: 439: 437: 435: 433: 431: 429: 427: 424: 423: 421: 417: 413: 410: 407: 403: 400: 396: 393: 390: 380: 376: 373: 370: 366: 362: 359: 355: 352: 348: 344: 341: 339: 336: 332: 329: 326: 322: 319: 316: 313: 310: 307: 304: 301: 300:Mailer Diablo 297: 294: 291: 289: 285: 283: 278: 274: 271: 268: 264: 261: 258: 253: 249: 246: 243: 239: 235: 232: 229: 226: 223: 187: 184: 180: 177: 173: 170: 166: 163: 160: 156: 153: 150: 147: 143: 140: 137: 134: 130: 127: 124: 120: 117: 113: 109: 104: 100: 99: 98: 97: 88: 85: 82: 78: 73: 72: 71: 68: 67: 66: 64: 61: 58: 51: 49: 45: 44: 43: 42: 40: 37: 29: 26: 19: 2170: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2137: 2126: 1948:Yellow Pages 1878: 1872: 1867: 1856: 1837: 1833: 1819: 1813: 1812: 1798: 1780: 1767: 1752: 1735:banned users 1734: 1725: 1712: 1705: 1701: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1666: 1662: 1646: 1638: 1634: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1608: 1596: 1592: 1586: 1580: 1573: 1572: 1543: 1538: 1534:User:Arvindn 1485: 1476: 1467: 1434:User:Ed Poor 1406: 1384: 1376: 1368: 1364: 1306: 1298: 1246: 1242: 1217: 1216: 1202: 1185: 1168: 1162: 1161: 1147: 1138: 1128: 1120: 1096: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1077: 1072: 1060: 1050: 1046: 1025: 1021: 1017: 995: 990: 979: 970: 952: 925: 915: 906: 901: 897: 885: 872: 868: 864: 823: 803: 776: 757: 751: 750: 727: 715: 678: 657: 653: 640: 629: 608: 598: 588: 575: 565: 555: 541: 526: 516: 494: 480: 415: 411: 379:Comrade Nick 377:Good user.-- 374: 320: 305: 295: 287: 281: 272: 262: 247: 233: 176:RedWordSmith 164: 159:Kevin Rector 154: 128: 95: 94: 83: 69: 54: 50: 33: 32: 2025:— Also see 2015:— Also see 1905:— Also see 1838:anticipated 1671:Jonathunder 1663:can only be 1659:Jonathunder 1582:addressing. 1526:User:Andris 1518:User:Andres 1502:Jonathunder 1321:Jonathunder 771:Jonathunder 767:Jonathunder 762:Jonathunder 580:FreplySpang 1915:— Compare 1803:Grace Note 1768:as a hobby 1639:just like 1554:Well put. 1510:User:Ams80 1486:buffoonery 1133:TigerShark 1024:user page 1012:CryptoDerk 985:Neutrality 593:Isomorphic 416:minor edit 169:Kingturtle 1889:Gado-gado 1753:technical 1628:every day 1567:JuntungWu 1303:talk page 1199:Clockwork 1188:Sjakkalle 1078:BLANKFAZE 1051:concerned 1001:Trilobite 873:something 818:Howabout1 744:speak up! 704:brian0918 560:Lucky 6.9 369:Sjakkalle 365:Sjakkalle 123:JuntungWu 116:Thryduulf 2186:Category 2174:contribs 2130:contribs 1943:Neurocam 1860:contribs 1842:Radiant! 1826:and the 1799:rewarded 1784:contribs 1647:opposite 1549:Emsworth 1472:Cecropia 1423:Uncle Ed 1218:Comments 1152:Bishonen 1125:Radiant! 911:Cecropia 890:Moncrief 804:Entirely 733:Gmaxwell 721:Bratsche 689:jpgordon 674:Cecropia 663:jpgordon 634:Kbdank71 570:Emsworth 499:Wikinews 489:\Mike(z) 395:utcursch 375:Support. 103:Grutness 87:contribs 36:18 April 2164:Uncle G 2120:Uncle G 1983:Enright 1850:Uncle G 1774:Uncle G 1468:doesn't 1450:Uncle G 1446:history 1427:Viajero 1397:Uncle G 1369:already 1345:Radiant 1331:Uncle G 1310:Zzyzx11 1275:CAT:CSD 1262:Zzyzx11 1251:Zzyzx11 1171:Uncle G 1163:Neutral 1022:neither 896:for an 808:Uncle G 802:reads " 728:Support 716:Support 654:Support 630:Support 613:gadfium 609:Support 599:Support 589:Support 576:Support 556:Support 546:SWAdair 542:Support 527:Support 517:Support 510:Xezbeth 495:Support 481:Support 473:Uncle G 412:Support 388:)---^-- 335:Charles 321:Support 312:Radiant 306:Support 296:Support 273:Support 248:Support 238:Zzyzx11 234:Support 183:Tuf-Kat 165:Support 129:Support 96:Support 77:Uncle G 60:Radiant 28:Uncle G 2148:per se 2109:, and 2085:(also 2033:Dunelm 2023:Dunlop 1963:Catlow 1935:, and 1923:, see 1726:within 1691:jag123 1597:you do 1532:, and 1440:or to 1359:(talk) 1293:(talk) 1282:(talk) 1243:delete 1225:Korath 1211:Hedley 1175:Korath 1148:Oppose 1139:Oppose 1121:Oppose 1097:Oppose 1073:oppose 1061:Oppose 1047:Oppose 1018:Oppose 1004:(Talk) 991:Oppose 965:Taxman 953:Oppose 927:Smoddy 907:oppose 902:Editor 886:Oppose 865:Oppose 832:(talk) 824:Oppose 794:jag123 777:Oppose 758:Oppose 752:Oppose 620:Korath 583:(talk) 521:SimonP 503:Dan100 358:Bjarki 328:(talk) 121:Fine. 2152:still 1958:Pedel 1846:WP:CP 1702:cough 1556:Phils 1490:Phils 1460:Phils 1442:Uncle 1425:? -- 1377:first 1142:Dwain 839:Lst27 641:Andre 603:nixie 550:Talk 406:Phils 325:MikeX 284:roken 277:ditto 41:(UTC) 16:< 2168:talk 2124:talk 2081:and 2013:Cleo 2003:TRGB 1973:Kula 1919:and 1903:NEET 1854:talk 1778:talk 1744:and 1722:chav 1713:tell 1689:and 1675:here 1657:and 1512:and 1381:diff 1375:the 1365:What 1314:Talk 1266:Talk 1255:Talk 1229:Talk 1203:Soul 1179:Talk 1156:talk 1084:(что 1066:Dbiv 1055:Alai 996:have 869:some 740:Slac 692:∇∆∇∆ 666:∇∆∇∆ 647:talk 624:Talk 536:Meow 399:talk 351:Talk 298:. - 290:egue 252:ugen 242:Talk 146:Rick 139:Rick 81:talk 39:2005 2158:or 1937:Uni 1933:Duo 1830:.) 1706:not 1635:not 1624:not 1620:not 1544:not 1539:Not 1407:bit 1385:you 1040:el 1026:nor 658:not 532:iMb 347:Dan 279:-- 228:(c) 225:(t) 133:Rje 2188:: 2138:3. 2105:, 2101:, 2097:, 2093:, 2089:, 1931:, 1929:Bi 1891:— 1873:2. 1820:1. 1643:is 1587:0. 1528:, 1524:, 1520:, 1474:| 1348:_* 1312:| 1264:| 1253:| 1154:| 1113:ті 1110:zє 1107:тə 1103:. 1087:?? 1081:| 1037:er 983:. 977:. 913:| 676:| 661:-- 548:| 530:-- 397:| 349:| 338:P. 323:— 315:_* 275:. 256:64 240:| 105:| 63:_* 2171:· 2166:( 2144:A 2127:· 2122:( 2029:. 2019:. 1909:. 1899:. 1879:A 1857:· 1852:( 1834:A 1781:· 1776:( 1679:I 1599:. 1593:A 1479:® 1444:( 1414:দ 1227:( 1177:( 1090:) 1034:P 1031:M 947:) 943:k 937:e 932:t 929:( 918:® 880:দ 858:) 855:k 852:l 849:a 846:t 843:( 788:, 709: 681:® 644:( 622:( 534:~ 483:( 384:@ 333:— 288:S 282:B 221:n 218:a 215:i 212:g 209:n 206:i 203:v 200:o 197:r 194:e 191:M 149:K 142:K 84:· 79:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Uncle G - Knowledge (XXG)

Index