1588:
rudeness and arrogance, but it allows you to get away with it. Not one single thing posted in the oppose section about me is even remotely, not even REMOTELY true, nor accurate. Sorry if that bothers you, but I am not afraid to call out lies being said about me when in fact they are being said about me. I would expect any level headed person to understand that. I see this as what it is. Some of the people here are rude, immature, arrogant, and generally uneducated. That's fine and it is the simple fact that most of the population is exactly that way. But don't expect everyone to reap praise on such individuals. I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you. Regardless of all that, did you ever consider asking me something? You know that is what a logical person would do. Perhaps you have some promise, as you did not just outright insult me and level false accusations towards me as most here did. Honestly, it's a bit sad how many here seem to act towards me for whatever dumb reasons. It certainly does not show well on the site, but actually it does explain a lot. It's quite obvious to me that being a good person is almost an automatic disqualify for this. It makes sense. In life the jerks (and psychos for that matter) are always in charge, or at least that seems to always be the case everywhere. But still, if you are going to be a jerk then you should not be all offended when someone else does not appreciate it, and you yourself should not be surprised that I would not be happy at being treated like crap by all these jerks here. If you have any suggestions for a better word than jerk please suggest it. But that's basically the best word that comes to mind from the statements I see in the oppose section. Then they put a little smart a.. comment like "keep up the good work" or "thanks for your contributions to the site", right after leveling a bunch of untrue garbage insults at you. Quite frankly, that's bush league. --
752:)? Is this a joke? Do you not even know this guy? What do the admin really do if they have users like Downwards still on this site? In case you were all too busy to notice, Downwards is in the top 1 percent of most hated contributors on this site. Literally dozens of members have been chased off this site by him and not once has anything been done about it. So excuse me for some comment I might have said to him once. Anyway, I am not in the least bit deterred by comments here. I am willing to help the site as an admin and I am more than capable of it (even despite some off the wall comment about my "English skills"). I see also some of you say you don't like my answers or you did not like how I was vague or whatever. Well, I was simply honest. But once again, it proves that honesty always gets you in trouble. Whatever. I will continue to contribute to the site when I can regardless, but it does show that this site has some issues. As I said, some people act like they are 12 years old with some comments they make to others. The sad part is they don't even seem to grasp it. With that being said, I thank those of you who made positive comments and supported me. Thank you for that. --
823:
nothing was done. It was just ignored and he continually makes rude comments to people. He will revert, revert, revert and leave edit summaries like "F... you" or "piss off dumb a..". Of course the admin seems to never have the time to intervene even at such actions being reported. Perhaps, just maybe perhaps, this has something to do with the fact that the process of selecting admin seems to be some kind of a popularity contest or a matter of personal opinion, rather than merit based, which in turn is causing a lack of quality admin or at least the real required number. Not to say everyone seems to be doing that as some here have been quite reasonable in their comments. But then again, clearly others have not. It's actually quite ironic that some would use comments made to
Downwards as a reason not to grant me a position. That is considering that if admin was doing their jobs right that guy would have been banned years ago. The subject of civility comes up, but I am a very civil user, so that really puzzles me quite a bit. --
1683:
on their user pages or on subpages. I suggest you read those. As for 'Knowledge' edits or user talk edits being lacking, I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't already understand. Handling ANI disputes? Proof of dispute resolution experience? No one requires a vast knowledge in every area, but not having any user interaction or knowledge of policy to look at means persons can't rate you abilities or knowledge. I was being extremely generous on criticism compared to much of the above, so I'm not entirely sure why you felt a need to pick on me... though I could compile a list of diffs that show incivility or other unusual actions if you really wanted. The incivility alone is more than enough grounds for an oppose, and the fact you engaged in some
744:- I am not sure if this is allowed or not, but I will support myself in this. If it's not allowed then I am sure that one of the people here will remove it. Anyway, the comments here are somewhat childish. Knowledge has really been going downhill lately (at least from what I have seen) and it needs as many quality people as it can get. You should be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you. I am not in the least bit impressed by some of the responses of some of the members here. Some of you really judge people and make the decisions in this manner? How is this even in the slightest bit effective? You criticize for comments made to others? Seriously? Like I see some of you are questioning things I said to the user
1061:: Multiple concerns. Virtually no edits in the Knowledge, Knowledge talk, or user talk spaces. Almost no participation in XfD, CSD, ANI, or any other admin areas whatsoever. Answers to questions seem to indicate that this user has little understanding of what admins do. Also, the answer to Q3 is frankly offputting and suggests temperament problems. You seem to be a dedicated content creator, but if you are interested in adminship, I'd recommend taking some time to become familiar with the "behind the scenes" areas of Knowledge. I'd also like to see some contributions of quality content (good or featured articles), and not infinity and one basketball stubs.
155:
dealing with problems, I think that users should not be reprimanded unless they are vandalizing or truly trying to harass others. However, I also believe that
Knowledge needs to pay a little more attention to users that run illegal bots, and are simply here to pad their edit counts with posts like "bad spelling" and other such nonsense with bots. Finally, let me just say that I can handle this job properly and fairly. I deserve a chance on this. I really do. I am being very unfairly tarnished here. Actually, some of the comments are a disgrace. I would be an excellent admin, probably better than the ones making rude remarks against me.
1628:, and compare to the diffs on the Basketball pages linked by Frank demonstrating... incivility. One good mention (kind of); the "popularity" competition view of RfA! "Popularity" apparently confused for "experience". It's not popularity, it's that experience in "admin-related" areas and discussions at XfD show logic, knowledge of policy and guidelines, civility, knowledge of the encyclopedia, etc etc. Editors will look through contribution histories for those things. These are lacking, as PhantomSteve mentioned. ...Well, this is my trying to be reasonable about this. I'm pretty much "per everyone", otherwise.
1571:
urge the candidate to withdraw and reconsider their behaviour and the comments that have been made in the Oppose section. I'm also concerned that this RfA appears to be a result of some sort of disagreement, rather than a genuine wish to help with the administration aspects of the project, this potentially being the case as indicated by several diffs above. Finally, I'm struggling to see any comments here in the Oppose section that don't show even a basic level of civility. Civility doesn't require everybody to support this request for adminship, giving an honest appraisal of a candidate is not uncivil.
1603:
not one person has given a single legit reason as to why I should not be granted an admin position. As for comments about "temperament" and "civility", so far there has been an extreme lack of that shown by some of the commentators, not by me. To those that are trying to be insulting - Do not think that you are being clever with stupid remarks like "strongest possible oppose," or "I can't possibly imagine how you could help," etc., etc. because you are not being clever. It's just childish. "When I was a child, I played as a child. But now that I am a man, I have put away childish things." --
885:: to become an admin on the English Knowledge, you need to have the trust of the community. It's not a matter of "popularity" - I have seen people support a candidate that they do not particularly like as an individual, but who they know will do a good job. You can trust someone, even if you don't agree with their opinions. I know editors here who I respect as editors (who might even be called friends), but do not feel that I could support them if they submitted an RfA. As to personal opinions: that is what this is all about - what we
853:- but looking through their contributions to Knowledge, I see an editor who appears to be doing a good job of tidying up. You have had a problem with them for about a year - but just because they disagree with you, that does not make them 'bad'. The comments that they have left on your talk page may have been brief, maybe even a bit sharp - but I do not find that they have said anything actionable to you. They have pointed out that in certain areas, capitalisation isn't required (and if you look at the
1668:
have 111, not none as you falsely assert. As for the
Knowledge edits I fail to see the issue there either. Editors are asked to have 3,000 edits before they apply? Well if I have over 50 just in the Knowledge section how is that lacking compared to a total of 3,000 overall? I am sorry, but nothing you claim holds water. It's just a bunch of personal conjecture. You need 3,000 edits overall and I have 666 on talk and you just say I have none on talk. That certainly does not add up. --
893:
use on
Knowledge, as well as showing that you can deal with conflicts and disputes - which I do not see evidence of. I'm not sure what "merit based" criteria you would use, but on Knowledge the "merit" is the trust you have gained from the community. If you have that trust then you will gain sufficient support at RfA, if you do not have that trust, then you won't. Knowledge is a community, and the community decides who it will trust to use the admin tools, and who it won't trust.
768:
1417:
2326:- This person seems to have a big grasp for basketball-related fields on the wiki; I appreciate that. However, I expected Q1 to be more specific in what areas the candidate wants to work in. A quick look through his contributions show only a few comments to AFDs and ANI. Perhaps if the candidate could put some more time into participating in administrative areas and remain
2298:
1128:, it seems clear to me the candidate is power hungry and is willing to use that power to get their way on trivial things such as sports position naming. In the same edit candidate is borderline civil and is apparently willing to ignore consensus to push their changes in articles where they are not needed.
1433:
little edits (many of which should have been labelled as minor), and lots of stubs created. Let me emphasise here that I think that their contributions to the articles are good, and very welcomed. Adminship however? I'm sorry, definitely nowhere near ready at the moment, or in the foreseeable future. --
1691:
it? You're just going to invite trouble for yourself if you dig your heels in on this, so I'm going to repeat the wisdom of others and highly suggest you bow out of this with at least a little dignity intact. I'd rather not have to look at any RfC that sparked from actions by a candidate on their own
1682:
Technically being eligible for RfA is meaningless (since there are no official requirements). Never said you weren't allowed to be a candidate. I'm just agreeing with the essentially-unanimous consensus opposing it for a long list of reasons.. A lot of the posters here have "realistic" RfA guidelines
1667:
You say I have no talk posts, yet I have the magical triple 6. You say I have no user talk edits.....why is this bad? What it means is that I am able to make many edits and usually almost never have anyone have issue with them. It means I am much better as an editor than the normal member. Besides, I
1432:
end up)... I could go on. The candidate bemoans the "high school maturity level" of
Knowledge - looking through their contributions, I didn't see anything to indicate that (despite 33K+ contributions) they have added content of a higher level. I also don't see much in the way of major edits - lots of
1645:
Figured I'd add some more "actual" objections, since the candidate may consider previous posts "100% false". Despite hundreds of edits to some articles, a total lack of use of their talk pages. Practically zero user talk, so there's no history of interactions to look at... and that candidate's edits
1427:
didn't help), the fact that they have almost no experience in
Wikispace, the fact that they have no idea what they could do as an admin (according to Q1), the fact that when SNOW was offered, instead of taking it (when they were already standing at 0/9/2) they decided to continue with this RfA (when
892:
There is no checklist for adminship. However, if there was to be, it would certainly include contributing to AN/ANI/ANEW/xfD and CSD/PRODs - I see almost no contributions in these areas. Such a hypothetical checklist would also include demonstrating that you understand the policies and guidelines in
771:
I am indenting this, as you don't need to show your support for yourself - if you didn't support yourself, you wouldn't submit. The reason why people have mentioned your comments is because you are expected to be able to justify your actions, and to do so in a calm, reasonable way. You have shown no
1602:
Firstly, this is not directed at any one particular message in the oppose column, but to all of them that are above this post. I strongly disagree with everything being said about me, which is 100% false, untrue, and is pure speculation and has no basis in reality whatsoever. Furthermore, as of yet
1464:
Amending my oppose to extremely strong oppose. Difference of opinion is one thing - I have no problem with that at all, sometimes I have changed my opinion as a result of other editors' arguments, such as at xfD - insulting people who disagree with you is totally different. Well done, WGB - this is
1365:
be a capable admin—you don't know what areas you want to work in, you have little experience in the WP namespace, and you have trouble getting along with others. I don't see anyone (including you) mentioning how you've reached consensus with anyone, anywhere, at any time. Your weak
English language
822:
Now you see how these comments could be seen or taken as immature? This is exactly what I mean. As for
Downwards, he has been reported numerous times and nothing is done about him. Quite typical of some problems with the site. I know myself and at least 5 others asked for him to be reprimanded and
1692:
RfA. Anyway, I'm shocked I let myself get baited back here even once and blame the headache, and if you don't understand how you might be baiting people into attempted arguments, I don't know how to explain that to you, either. You're not going to get anyone here to fall into an incivility trap.
1570:
If the candidate is not able to accept the opinions given by the many users above me here, without resorting to the comment below and accusing those posting here of saying they're lying, then they have no place on
Knowledge, let alone assisting the project in the role of administrator. I strongly
1801:
This editor has not shown enough knowledge of policy in his edits or in answering the questions to be trusted with admin tools. While I would like to see more editors with extensive article work on RfA, there must be an indication that the tools will be used correctly, which isn't the case here.
784:
showing that they have 'chased off' dozens of members - and proving that he 'is in the top 1% of most hated contributors on this site'. Having said all this, I am glad that you are going to continue to contribute to
Knowledge - I look forward to seeing your contributions which show how this site
154:
Yes, I have had certain users be very difficult with me. Some of them are extremely rude and out of line and honestly a few of them I have no clue how they have not been banned from the site. But other than a few bad apples I think most people want to help contribute in a positive manner. As for
1587:
Perhaps you should read the comments a little more clearly if you think they are perfectly "civil". If people talk like that in person, they might get their teeth knocked out, but on the net they can insult to any level they want without any worry. The anonymity of the internet does not change
249:
To help us to ascertain what kind of admin you would make, here is a hypothetical situation - please indicate how you would deal with it, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which sections of which
869:
edits you made to their talk page. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't find evidence of issues between the two of you since March - 9 months ago, and even those were relatively minor (capitalisation of names for example). As an admin, you would need to look at
2219:- I almost never, ever say this, but this is probably one of the very rare examples of someone I doubt could ever be an administrator. Usually I offer some piece of advice about something that a person could do in the future to get my trust but... I got nothing. --
2482:'s edit count. Much of the oppose votes are based on his temperment and the fact that this user doesn't have enough edits to the mainspace, but the user has a lot of edits overall to other namespaces (such as User Talk: and Knowledge:, etc.) –
542:
For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
1300:, giving you the tools is obviously not going to help the project. You may disagree with policies etc, but considering yourself the only educated person in a sea of immature people is, to put it mildly, lacking in judgment. -
555:
The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as
139:
I like to add pertinent info to help the site expand where it needs to. I believe this is a key for Knowledge, although others may disagree. I am a very good contributor and I am worthy of this post. I can be
927:
You only confirmed everything I said. The sad part is that you seem unable to comprehend it. I will state unequivocally that I would be a better admin than you. So by simple logic I should be given a chance.
535:
Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin.
124:
Whatever is needed by the site. I am sure that others can make suggestions. Tell me where the site needs help and I will oblige. I am willing to help out as much as is needed. My IQ is 197, so I can do
2350:
I am very civil, what do you see wrong with my civility? Anyway, thank you for the kind remarks. You are able to recognize a good user, unlike many others here who seem to lack that ability. Thanks. --
2510:
1089:
You have 38 edits to the project space... including 5 to this RFA. You need a lot more contact with the back-end aspects of Knowledge before becoming a sysop. Maybe someday, but not today.
496:
2190:
No thank you, due to the obvious incivility. I had to check if this was genuine and I'm still not sure. But please try again later. Merry Christmas/new year/whatever holiday you're having. --
491:
375:
785:
could be raised above the "high school maturity level" that you mentioned - perhaps you could provide some links to some of the work which you have done which show this already? --
85:) – I am nominating myself because I believe I could do a very good job of this. I can help contribute more this way. It seems like every day Knowledge more and more needs help.
1423:
Normally with a candidate standing at 0/15/3, I would opt for 'neutral' to avoid pile-on, but the fact that this candidate's temperament and attitude seems wrong (comments like
1501:. The strongest oppose I think I've ever given at RfA. Insulting everybody in their own RfA, plus the other links that have already been posted clearly demonstrate the exactly
111:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
332:
226:
1106:
per Frank's diffs regarding attitude and no experience in Wikispace, despite having over 30k edits. You look like a good article builder, but unfortunately adminship is
345:
148:
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?
2277:- By the looks of things an extremely productive editor, albeit not enough behind the scenes work to be considered a candidate for adminship. I'd like to request a
889:
think about a candidate. If you were to have supporters, they would be using their personal opinions to explain why they support you - or would that be invalid too?
2261:. If you'd still like to become an administrator, please show more experience in administrative areas. Also, please watch what you say. Maybe next time. Regards,
772:
interest in the "admin" areas of Knowledge - and can give no reasons for why you want to be an admin, or what you would do if you were an admin. With regards to
339:
2528:
486:
401:
325:
82:
296:
If you try for RFA again (since you will not pass this time), do you think you can obtain the requisite humbleness necessary to become an administrator?
857:
you will see that they are correct). From what I can see, your issue with Downwards appears to be content dispute-related - and I can't see evidence of
1008:
512:
845:
I wasn't going to respond to this thread again, as I thought that I'd said everything that I needed to, but I have just spent some time looking at
1624:: The open incivility toward PhantomSteve resulting in an audible sigh. I will quote the following from above as a concern of future incivility;
1110:. (ec) Furthermore A3 gives me the impression that candidate might be heavy handed with the tools with editors who they deem as causing trouble.
1960:
There is nothing either in this RfA nor in the candidate's contributions to indicate that they are suited to the task fo being an administrator.
1715:
Just, no. The arrogance and attitude problems are clear just from the candidate's demeanour on this page, let alone delving into his contribs.
1766:
Users is too aggressive while talking to others, and the self-admiration in this rfa-"I'm better than everyone else" attitude is concerning. --
522:
369:
434:
1004:
1835:- Decent content contributions, but the user appears to have the disposition of a child. Comments here smack of arrogance too. No thanks.
1386:, you wrote "I don't understand this site at all... But the site is something like a high school maturity level." Others here have said
384:
1378:, you wrote "I was banned for weeks from the site," but I've seen no mention or explanation of why you were banned (much less blocked).
639:
My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an
460:
1995:
1528:
The incivility brought up here is frankly shocking... your temperament is blatantly the opposite of what we want in an administrator.
1485:
1453:
916:
805:
481:
1404:
1979:- Sorry, there are too many issues, notably your lack of experience in Administrative areas of the project and civility concerns.
874:
actions of an editor, not old ones. Looking at Downward's talk page, I see no complaints (other than yours) since March - I would
476:
2078:
1737:- Extreme maturity issues, I'm to the thinking that this is definitely a minor, or someone who has no idea what maturity means. -
30:
17:
999:. I think this user will complement the current admin corps nicely. Also, during slow days, he and I can shoot the shit about
2355:
1673:
1608:
1593:
1400:
933:
828:
757:
319:
90:
76:
1190:
issues raised by Frank. I wonder if more can be done to highlight the futility of this sort of thing before it gets this far.
1855:
1224:
455:
2197:
2486:
2428:
1867:
599:
2107:
No means to be rude, but my IQ is about 130. I assume that 9,000 really means multiplying an Einstein brain by 60, eh?
896:
This is my last comment on this AfD, but I felt that I should explain the above. Keep up the good work on articles! --
675:
Ummmm. iMatthew, Wiki Greek Basketball has some 34,428 edits over the past two years. I don't think this is a case of
2489:
2469:
2451:
2431:
2405:
2385:
2359:
2345:
2316:
2290:
2269:
2238:
2211:
2185:
2158:
2138:
2126:
2102:
2084:
2054:
2034:
2020:
2003:
1971:
1955:
1935:
1909:
1887:
1861:
1827:
1811:
1793:
1775:
1758:
1727:
1704:
1677:
1662:
1640:
1612:
1597:
1580:
1565:
1520:
1491:
1459:
1409:
1353:
1332:
1313:
1288:
1264:
1246:
1229:
1198:
1178:
1156:
1137:
1119:
1098:
1081:
1053:
1012:
981:
963:
937:
922:
832:
811:
761:
729:
697:
660:
569:
94:
61:
2042:
260:) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this?
2479:
2351:
2047:
1669:
1604:
1589:
929:
824:
753:
315:
86:
72:
854:
427:
517:
1733:
644:
1094:
647:
before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.
2483:
2425:
2398:
2338:
2151:
2119:
1307:
883:
the process of selecting admin seems to be some kind of a popularity contest or a matter of personal opinion
640:
2205:
2030:
2016:
1989:
1951:
1479:
1447:
1152:
910:
799:
1090:
2509:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2457:
1272:
The diffs provided by Fred paint a very clear picture of what we would be in for, especially this one:
2192:
1428:
no one had supported them in 3 hours - which shows that the candidate has not seen how RfAs like that
2465:
2312:
2286:
2071:
1947:
1880:
1284:
725:
420:
257:
846:
773:
745:
2181:
1836:
1825:
1700:
1658:
1636:
1396:
1191:
749:
631:
57:
2391:
2331:
2144:
2135:
2112:
1845:
1789:
1301:
1242:
1220:
1173:
1133:
1115:
1065:
655:
397:
2257:
just bombed your RfA :(. I won't vote as I don't want to pile on, but you don't have my support
193:
2417:
2108:
2100:
2026:
2012:
1981:
1966:
1807:
1468:
1436:
1148:
899:
788:
611:
537:
273:
241:
2442:
2372:
2262:
1922:
1745:
1718:
1511:
1387:
1107:
950:
676:
2461:
2327:
2308:
2282:
2233:
2202:
2064:
1280:
1210:. Also nearly all edits are to the mainspace, almost never participates on talkpages. --
1207:
1046:
1000:
721:
573:
1078:
2278:
2177:
1876:
1820:
1697:
1655:
1633:
1576:
1392:
1328:
1255:
781:
714:
547:
942:
And I'd be a better president than Larry King, so I guess I should be president then?
2522:
2378:
2172:. Uncivil for the diffs given above, arguably arrogant for his answer to question 1;
2062:
I think we know why, I'm not going to re-summarize what has already been summarized.
1928:
1785:
1781:
1771:
1751:
1238:
1212:
1168:
1129:
1111:
956:
875:
777:
649:
565:
561:
557:
1819:. You'd think someone with a 'supposed' IQ of 197 would know how to pass an RfA. --
2093:
1961:
1898:
1803:
1342:
970:
858:
767:
682:
620:
616:
1416:
2475:
2437:
2390:(To WGB) You're welcome, and I wish you best of luck with future contributions!
2366:
1916:
1872:
1739:
1530:
1506:
944:
164:
776:, without commenting on the case in particular, I would suggest that you go to
2221:
2131:
1073:
1040:
2503:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2025:
Default oppose for any future RFA attempts if my questions aren't answered.
1572:
1390:, but based on what you've written, I'm not sure that you'll ever be ready.
1323:
587:
Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
1871:
per the users history and the RFA itself. you IQ means nothing, Remember "
1767:
1646:
to this page are more numerous than all others in "Knowledge" articles
1237:
per Q1 and Q2. Doesn't seem to be good enough to become an admin yet.
2513:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
2460:
case. I've never seen an RFA candidate be so rude and condescending.
2436:
Um, 34502 edits since February 2008. How exactly is this a new user?
590:
Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
400:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
412:
1626:...I am a very civil user, so that really puzzles me quite a bit
538:
But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
1340:. per above. Serious issues with temperament and experience. -
861:
here. Your last comment to Downwards (apart from yesterday) was
717:, and the candidate has elected to let it run it's full course
416:
256:, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (
1465:
the first time that I have used a qualifier for an oppose. --
1361:, and then some. I honestly can't figure out in what way you
101:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
2092:
only editors with IQs over 9000 are suitable for adminship.
2011:
per civility concerns and lack of project space experience.
175:
What is your theory on quantum physics in relation to RFA?
382:
Edit summary usage for Wiki Greek Basketball can be found
250:
policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
133:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
118:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2306:
2254:
1893:
1424:
1382:
1374:
1368:
1297:
1273:
1125:
1034:
1031:
1028:
862:
780:
and bring your case against them there - complete with
718:
623:
as the surest way to gain article building experience.
615:
of Knowledge. I recommend significant participation in
363:
357:
351:
626:
If you are not the type of person who likes to write
196:
1372:, I don't believe you see there's an issue here. In
630:, there's plenty of other article work you can do (
505:
469:
448:
220:
2281:closure. I think the message has been delivered.
1896:that they wish for the RfA to run full circle. -
584:Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
604:The ability to communicate clearly is essential
2364:Your comment right there genius, tells all. --
1321:, concerns about temperament, and experience.
550:, most people would like a few thousand more.
428:
8:
2424:editor is requesting adminship too early. –
579:As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
402:Special:Contributions/Wiki Greek Basketball
435:
421:
413:
281:What is your opinion on cooldown blocks?
195:
1366:skills could be worked around, but when
396:Please keep discussion constructive and
1369:you brag about how good your English is
2330:, then I would give a hearty support.
1164:Candidate's answer to Q1 bothers me.
713:This RFA has already been closed per
7:
2143:Ah, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
162:Additional "Rain Man" question from
2529:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
1875:". Perhaps you should end this per
1687:the RfA page and on your user talk
1166:Besides, he has made too few edits.
881:With regards to your comment above
272:Additional optional questions from
240:Additional optional questions from
2478:'s comment, it seems I overlooked
24:
2305:, and rejected by the candidate:
1914:The more humor the better. ;-) --
576:to learn when to do these things.
313:Links for Wiki Greek Basketball:
252:You have been editing an article
2296:
1415:
849:history. Yes, they were blocked
766:
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1005:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back
598:Admins need a familiarity with
2251:Neutral leaning towards oppose
2176:the temperament for an admin.
1:
2490:07:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
2470:18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2452:12:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2432:11:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2416:This is just another case of
2406:17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2386:15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2360:10:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2346:06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2317:05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2291:04:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2270:04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2239:18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2212:18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2186:18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2159:18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2139:18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2127:17:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2103:17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2085:17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2055:17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2046:- lots of civility concerns.
2043:Strongest possible oppose + 1
2035:18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2021:17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2004:17:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1972:16:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1956:15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1936:15:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1910:15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1888:15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1862:15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1828:14:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1812:14:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1794:14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1776:13:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1759:13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1728:12:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1705:12:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1678:11:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1663:11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1641:11:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1613:09:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1598:11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1581:11:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1566:10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1521:09:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1492:10:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1460:08:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1410:07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1354:06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1333:06:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1314:06:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1289:05:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1265:05:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1247:04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1230:04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1199:04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1179:04:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1157:03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1138:03:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1120:09:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1099:03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1082:03:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1054:02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1013:16:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
982:15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
964:15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
938:09:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
923:09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
833:08:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
812:08:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
762:08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
730:05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
698:03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
661:03:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
95:02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
62:18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
570:Knowledge:Protection policy
190:What is the square root of
107:Questions for the candidate
2545:
2352:User:Wiki Greek Basketball
1892:Wiki Greek Basketball has
1670:User:Wiki Greek Basketball
1605:User:Wiki Greek Basketball
1590:User:Wiki Greek Basketball
1505:temprament for adminship.
1027:- Candidate's temperament
930:User:Wiki Greek Basketball
825:User:Wiki Greek Basketball
221:{\displaystyle 3.14xJimbo}
56:Final (1/38/4); Closed by
1784:oppose and no support!!!
1526:Strongest possible oppose
1275:. Wants the position for
1104:Strongest Possible Oppose
2506:Please do not modify it.
1873:Stupid is as stupid does
1108:not for you at this time
609:Article building is the
546:However, if you work on
39:Please do not modify it.
1421:Extremely Strong Oppose
593:Negotiate a compromise.
1879:and try again later?--
222:
2480:Wiki Greek Basketball
2060:Strong, strong oppose
2050:December21st2012Freak
754:Wiki Greek Basketball
316:Wiki Greek Basketball
223:
87:Wiki Greek Basketball
73:Wiki Greek Basketball
50:Wiki Greek Basketball
31:request for adminship
1147:per Bradjamesbrown.
518:Global contributions
194:
1279:the wrong reasons.
482:Non-automated edits
2009:Very Strong Oppose
1270:Very Strong Oppose
865:, which is one of
859:dispute resolution
600:dispute resolution
461:Edit summary usage
404:before commenting.
218:
40:
2456:Agree, this is a
2384:
2001:
1934:
1905:
1857:
1852:
1780:Yeah! Let's make
1757:
1726:
1349:
1254:per Frank et al.
1245:
1070:
1069:
1052:
977:
962:
692:
531:
530:
169:
38:
2536:
2508:
2474:After reviewing
2449:
2440:
2403:
2396:
2381:
2375:
2365:
2343:
2336:
2304:
2300:
2299:
2265:
2236:
2230:
2227:
2224:
2210:
2208:
2200:
2195:
2156:
2149:
2124:
2117:
2111:could help! :-)
2098:
2083:
2081:
2075:
2068:
2052:
1998:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1984:
1931:
1925:
1915:
1906:
1903:
1885:
1856:
1850:
1846:
1840:
1823:
1754:
1748:
1738:
1725:
1723:
1716:
1703:
1661:
1639:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1533:
1518:
1509:
1488:
1482:
1474:
1471:
1456:
1450:
1442:
1439:
1419:
1408:
1385:
1377:
1371:
1350:
1347:
1310:
1304:
1262:
1241:
1215:
1196:
1176:
1171:
1080:
1076:
1063:
1062:
1051:
1049:
1043:
1038:
978:
975:
959:
953:
943:
919:
913:
905:
902:
808:
802:
794:
791:
770:
696:
693:
687:
657:
652:
548:vandalism patrol
477:Articles created
437:
430:
423:
414:
387:
379:
338:
308:General comments
227:
225:
224:
219:
163:
2544:
2543:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2511:this nomination
2504:
2443:
2438:
2399:
2392:
2379:
2373:
2369:
2339:
2332:
2297:
2295:
2263:
2247:
2234:
2228:
2225:
2222:
2206:
2198:
2193:
2191:
2152:
2145:
2120:
2113:
2094:
2079:
2073:
2066:
2063:
2048:
1996:
1990:
1982:
1980:
1929:
1923:
1919:
1902:
1899:
1883:Coldplay Expért
1881:
1860:
1851:
1848:
1838:
1821:
1752:
1746:
1742:
1719:
1717:
1696:
1654:
1632:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1512:
1507:
1486:
1480:
1472:
1469:
1454:
1448:
1440:
1437:
1391:
1381:
1373:
1367:
1346:
1343:
1308:
1302:
1256:
1213:
1192:
1174:
1169:
1074:
1072:
1047:
1041:
1039:
1021:
1001:Olympiacos B.C.
974:
971:
957:
951:
947:
917:
911:
903:
900:
855:manual of Style
806:
800:
792:
789:
738:
691:
686:
683:
680:
654:
650:
532:
527:
501:
465:
444:
443:RfA/RfB toolbox
441:
411:
383:
331:
314:
310:
192:
191:
167:
109:
70:
53:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2542:
2540:
2532:
2531:
2521:
2520:
2516:
2515:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2367:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2272:
2246:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2214:
2188:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2087:
2057:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2006:
1974:
1958:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1917:
1900:
1864:
1847:
1843:
1830:
1814:
1796:
1778:
1761:
1740:
1734:Pile on Oppose
1730:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1600:
1568:
1543:
1523:
1499:Absolutely not
1496:
1495:
1494:
1413:
1356:
1344:
1335:
1316:
1291:
1267:
1249:
1232:
1201:
1188:edit count and
1181:
1159:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1124:After finding
1101:
1091:Bradjamesbrown
1084:
1056:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
972:
945:
925:
894:
890:
879:
838:
837:
836:
835:
817:
816:
815:
814:
737:
734:
733:
732:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
689:
684:
666:
665:
664:
663:
645:Admin coaching
643:or to receive
637:
636:
635:
607:
595:
594:
591:
588:
585:
581:
580:
577:
553:
552:
551:
529:
528:
526:
525:
520:
515:
509:
507:
503:
502:
500:
499:
494:
489:
484:
479:
473:
471:
467:
466:
464:
463:
458:
452:
450:
446:
445:
442:
440:
439:
432:
425:
417:
410:
407:
393:
392:
391:
389:
380:
309:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
290:
289:
288:
287:
276:
269:
268:
267:
266:
251:
244:
237:
236:
235:
234:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
184:
183:
182:
181:
170:
165:
159:
158:
157:
156:
143:
142:
141:
128:
127:
126:
108:
105:
104:
103:
69:
66:
58:bibliomaniac15
52:
47:
45:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2541:
2530:
2527:
2526:
2524:
2514:
2512:
2507:
2501:
2500:
2491:
2488:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2447:
2441:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2430:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2407:
2404:
2402:
2397:
2395:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2382:
2376:
2370:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2344:
2342:
2337:
2335:
2329:
2325:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2307:
2303:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2273:
2271:
2268:
2266:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2237:
2232:
2231:
2218:
2215:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2201:
2196:
2189:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2168:
2160:
2157:
2155:
2150:
2148:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2137:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2118:
2116:
2110:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2101:
2099:
2097:
2091:
2088:
2086:
2082:
2077:
2076:
2070:
2069:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2007:
2005:
1999:
1993:
1985:
1978:
1975:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1959:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1943:
1937:
1932:
1926:
1920:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1907:
1895:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1886:
1884:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1842:
1841:
1834:
1833:Strong Oppose
1831:
1829:
1826:
1824:
1818:
1815:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1760:
1755:
1749:
1743:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1729:
1724:
1722:
1714:
1706:
1702:
1699:
1695:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1638:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1569:
1567:
1563:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1516:
1510:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1483:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1431:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1412:
1411:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1384:
1376:
1370:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1305:
1299:
1298:feel this way
1295:
1294:Strong Oppose
1292:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1260:
1253:
1252:Strong Oppose
1250:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1216:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1077:
1067:
1066:edit conflict
1060:
1057:
1055:
1050:
1044:
1036:
1035:for adminship
1033:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
983:
980:
979:
967:
966:
965:
960:
954:
948:
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
926:
924:
920:
914:
908:
907:
906:
895:
891:
888:
884:
880:
877:
873:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
834:
830:
826:
821:
820:
819:
818:
813:
809:
803:
797:
796:
795:
783:
779:
775:
769:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
712:
709:
708:
699:
695:
694:
678:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
662:
658:
656:
653:
646:
642:
641:Editor Review
638:
633:
629:
625:
624:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:raison d'être
608:
605:
601:
597:
596:
592:
589:
586:
583:
582:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
554:
549:
545:
544:
541:
540:
539:
534:
533:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
510:
508:
504:
498:
495:
493:
490:
488:
485:
483:
480:
478:
475:
474:
472:
468:
462:
459:
457:
454:
453:
451:
447:
438:
433:
431:
426:
424:
419:
418:
415:
408:
406:
405:
403:
399:
390:
386:
381:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
350:
347:
344:
341:
337:
334:
330:
327:
324:
321:
317:
312:
311:
307:
301:
298:
297:
295:
292:
291:
286:
283:
282:
280:
277:
275:
271:
270:
265:
262:
261:
259:
255:
248:
245:
243:
239:
238:
233:
230:
229:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
189:
186:
185:
180:
177:
176:
174:
171:
168:
161:
160:
153:
150:
149:
147:
144:
138:
135:
134:
132:
129:
123:
120:
119:
117:
114:
113:
112:
106:
102:
99:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
81:
78:
74:
67:
65:
64:
63:
59:
51:
48:
46:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2505:
2502:
2484:BuickCentury
2445:
2444:
2426:BuickCentury
2421:
2400:
2393:
2340:
2333:
2323:
2301:
2274:
2267:
2258:
2250:
2220:
2216:
2173:
2169:
2153:
2146:
2121:
2114:
2095:
2089:
2072:
2065:
2059:
2049:
2041:
2027:Doc Quintana
2013:Doc Quintana
2008:
1983:Jeffrey Mall
1976:
1967:
1962:
1945:Lump of Coal
1944:
1897:
1882:
1866:
1837:
1832:
1816:
1798:
1763:
1732:
1720:
1693:
1688:
1684:
1651:
1647:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1525:
1514:
1513:
1502:
1498:
1467:
1466:
1435:
1434:
1429:
1420:
1379:
1362:
1358:
1341:
1337:
1322:
1318:
1306:
1293:
1276:
1269:
1258:
1257:
1251:
1243:(Talk to me)
1234:
1218:
1211:
1203:
1193:
1187:
1183:
1165:
1161:
1149:Willking1979
1144:
1103:
1086:
1058:
1024:
996:
969:
968:hear hear. -
898:
897:
886:
882:
871:
866:
850:
787:
786:
741:
711:Please note:
710:
681:
648:
632:WikiGnomeing
627:
610:
603:
395:
394:
372:
366:
360:
354:
348:
342:
335:
328:
322:
299:
293:
284:
278:
274:Doc Quintana
263:
253:
246:
242:Phantomsteve
231:
187:
178:
172:
151:
145:
136:
130:
121:
115:
110:
100:
79:
71:
55:
54:
49:
44:
34:
28:
2264:Airplaneman
851:in the past
634:for start).
523:User rights
513:CentralAuth
2462:Beeblebrox
2458:WP:NOTEVER
2374:have a cup
2309:Beeblebrox
2283:WFCforLife
1948:Keepscases
1924:have a cup
1747:have a cup
1281:Beeblebrox
952:have a cup
887:personally
722:Beeblebrox
506:Cross-wiki
497:AfD closes
409:Discussion
258:editor-123
68:Nomination
2418:WP:NOTNOW
2259:as of now
2253:- Well,
2178:Ironholds
2132:OVER 9000
1894:indicated
1698:daTheisen
1656:daTheisen
1634:daTheisen
1560:Christmas
1388:WP:NOTNOW
1383:this edit
1375:this edit
1259:Wizardman
1206:Terribly
1126:this edit
847:Downwards
774:Downwards
746:Downwards
677:WP:NOTNOW
492:AfD votes
487:BLP edits
358:block log
254:Article-1
125:anything.
2523:Category
2422:new user
2394:Schfifty
2334:Schfifty
2147:Schfifty
2136:MuZemike
2115:Schfifty
1997:be merry
1839:Wisdom89
1786:Chutznik
1648:combined
1487:contribs
1455:contribs
1401:Contribs
1303:Spaceman
1239:ConCompS
1214:Kraftlos
1170:Bejinhan
1130:ArcAngel
1112:ArcAngel
1032:suitable
918:contribs
863:in March
807:contribs
651:iMatthew
574:WP:BLOCK
470:Analysis
449:Counters
326:contribs
140:trusted.
83:contribs
2324:Neutral
2279:WP:SNOW
2275:Neutral
2245:Neutral
2096:Prodego
1877:WP:SNOW
1804:Mrathel
1470:Phantom
1438:Phantom
1296:If you
1277:exactly
1225:Contrib
1208:uncivil
997:Support
901:Phantom
790:Phantom
742:Support
736:Support
715:WP:SNOW
628:content
333:deleted
2487:Driver
2476:Ged UK
2429:Driver
2420:. An
2368:Coffee
2217:Oppose
2170:Oppose
2090:Oppose
1977:Oppose
1918:Coffee
1904:ASTILY
1868:Oppose
1817:Oppose
1799:Oppose
1782:WP:100
1764:Oppose
1741:Coffee
1721:GARDEN
1701:(talk)
1689:during
1659:(talk)
1637:(talk)
1622:Oppose
1430:always
1405:Review
1359:Oppose
1348:ASTILY
1338:Oppose
1319:Oppose
1235:Oppose
1204:Oppose
1194:Şļџğģő
1184:Oppose
1162:Oppose
1145:Oppose
1087:Oppose
1059:Oppose
1042:Frank
1025:Oppose
1019:Oppose
976:ASTILY
946:Coffee
872:recent
778:WP:ANI
688:ASTILY
572:, and
566:WP:CSD
562:WP:AFD
558:WP:AIV
456:XTools
166:Coffee
2328:civil
2207:wicke
2074:comms
2067:fetch
1503:wrong
1473:Steve
1441:Steve
1363:might
1309:Spiff
1048:talk
1029:isn't
904:Steve
878:here.
793:Steve
782:diffs
621:WP:FA
617:WP:GA
398:civil
340:count
33:that
16:<
2466:talk
2356:talk
2313:talk
2302:Done
2287:talk
2255:this
2182:talk
2109:This
2031:talk
2017:talk
1991:talk
1963:Sher
1952:talk
1808:talk
1790:talk
1772:talk
1674:talk
1609:talk
1594:talk
1577:talk
1573:Nick
1481:talk
1449:talk
1425:this
1397:Talk
1393:Dori
1329:talk
1324:Cirt
1285:talk
1221:Talk
1186:per
1175:Talk
1153:talk
1134:talk
1116:talk
1095:talk
1009:talk
934:talk
912:talk
829:talk
801:talk
758:talk
750:talk
726:talk
690:sock
385:here
370:rfar
352:logs
320:talk
198:3.14
91:talk
77:talk
2439:Ged
2383://
2380:ark
2377://
2371://
2199:dle
2194:can
2174:not
2134:. –
2002:-
1968:eth
1933://
1930:ark
1927://
1921://
1774:)
1768:Zvn
1756://
1753:ark
1750://
1744://
1532:The
1508:Ged
1407:) ❦
1395:❦ (
1380:In
1003:.--
961://
958:ark
955://
949://
876:AGF
679:. -
659:at
619:or
376:spi
346:AfD
60:on
2525::
2468:)
2446:UK
2358:)
2315:)
2289:)
2226:am
2223:At
2184:)
2033:)
2019:)
1994:•
1954:)
1854:/
1810:)
1792:)
1685:on
1676:)
1650:.
1611:)
1596:)
1579:)
1541:ng
1538:hi
1515:UK
1490:\
1458:\
1403:❖
1399:❖
1331:)
1287:)
1223:|
1155:)
1136:)
1118:)
1097:)
1075:æk
1071:—
1045:|
1037:.
1011:)
936:)
928:--
921:\
831:)
810:\
760:)
728:)
720:.
602:.
568:,
564:,
560:,
364:lu
285:A:
279:7.
264:A:
247:6.
232:A.
228:?
188:5.
179:A.
173:4.
152:A:
146:3.
137:A:
131:2.
122:A:
116:1.
93:)
37:.
2464:(
2401:3
2354:(
2341:3
2311:(
2285:(
2235:頭
2229:a
2203:•
2180:(
2154:3
2122:3
2080:☛
2029:(
2015:(
2000:)
1988:(
1950:(
1901:F
1859:)
1849:T
1844:(
1822:œ
1806:(
1788:(
1770:(
1694:♪
1672:(
1652:♪
1630:♪
1607:(
1592:(
1575:(
1557:y
1554:r
1551:r
1548:e
1545:M
1535:T
1484:|
1478:/
1452:|
1446:/
1345:F
1327:(
1283:(
1227:)
1219:(
1151:(
1132:(
1114:(
1093:(
1068:)
1064:(
1007:(
973:F
932:(
915:|
909:/
867:6
827:(
804:|
798:/
756:(
748:(
724:(
685:F
606:.
436:e
429:t
422:v
388:.
378:)
373:·
367:·
361:·
355:·
349:·
343:·
336:·
329:·
323:·
318:(
300:A
294:8
216:o
213:b
210:m
207:i
204:J
201:x
89:(
80:·
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.