Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3

4383:

themselves are. Having the delete and protect tabs at the top of every page does not convey any special privilege, and I am wary to grant them to any user who has been capricious in opposing RfAs with extremely high standards. As an administrator, and therefore speaking from experience, this user's voting patterns on RfAs lead me to believe that he or she views the tools in such a way that I am uncomfortable giving them to the candidate. Specifically, in this case, I worry that Wisdom, by opposing editors for having "the wrong mix" of edits and "not enough project space" edits, will become an admin who injects him or herself into controversial areas without appropriate foresight; one who is involved in drama rather than actual administrative tasks. This, combined with the extensive admin coaching, and to borrow phrasing used before me, the presentation of this RfA as a fait accompli, gives me an overall negative impression.

3493:

significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions suggest that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and content editors. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a strong net-negative impact on the Knowledge (XXG), which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. A candidate indicated an interest to involve himself into such decisions and his consulting IRC when doing this would only make the matters worse as shown from experience. He already shows signs of being coached (perhaps at IRC as well.) I feel the user is a "nice guy" and I wish him luck in content writing but I cannot support his candidacy. --

2515:

to them; that's what this process was created for, so that every Wikipedian can have a say and the community consensus can be determined. Why should it matter if a bunch of Wikipedians post at once or over the course of a few days? The end result is the same. Sure the user wants it. What's wrong with that? He wants the tools to make Knowledge (XXG) a better place, and you know what, I think he will. I'm sick and tired of seeing these sort of complaints on RFAs. How about we stop worrying about whether the user wants Adminship or not, and start worrying about whether Knowledge (XXG) will be benefited if the receive it.--

705:'s advice of "net positive". I ask myself, "will the candidate abuse the tools?", is it likely that they will (at the present) hamper productivity. Please do not think that I simply click the edit count button and then cast my !vote. I make it a point to peruse the special contributions. I now see that niche candidates can make exceptional administrators. The process is about community trust, not numbers. I do, however, take special notice when I candidate flat out says "I wish to work at 693:, for those of you who don't know. I felt, and to a degree still feel (albeit minorly), that editors who demonstrate/d a sheer disparity in their edits, one side extreme project, the other, extreme mainspace, might be somewhat unfit for adminship because it robs them of the opportunity to glean experience. I have since refined my judgment and have made an effort to !vote based on a user's skills in communication/deliberation, article building, trust, and sometimes just a gut feeling. See 3488:

that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Knowledge (XXG). Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater

655:

easily access IRC, and if it would facilitate getting in contact with other administrators or editors who wish to correspond, then I will happily participate. Currently, I am best reached via Email and my talk page. With that said, and to answer the latter part of your questions, if the channel is "for administrators of Knowledge (XXG) only" then proper use would involve discussions about various Knowledge (XXG) essays, policy proposals and communication to preclude

289:

seen Wisdom on almost every noticeboard ranging from ANI to AIV and always has proven to be helpful, and often wonder if there is ever a need to check the contributions of a user reported to AIV as I know I know the result. On noticeboards I always look for his comments as they always prove to be undoubtedly helpful. As well as great work in admin related areas Wisdom has also produced wonderful article contributions such as

683:

for the candidate. My concern, however, is when you oppose some candidates. Sometimes I feel as if you are focusing more on your perception of what an Admin should be rather than upon the general/individual merits of the candidate themselves. This is particularly a concern when dealing with niche candidates who don't fit the traditional roles of admin. Can you address this concern of mine?

297:(so users who like to oppose due to lack of article contributions, be prepared to support). Overall I feel this user is well rounded, responsible, thoughtful, helpful, and always willing to listen to complaints and learn from mistakes. I do not commonly nominate users for adminship, but there was no way I was going to pass this one up. Wisdom89 is ready for the mop, now lets give it to him. 479:: I tend to gravitate to AFD because my mainspace participation has focused on article building/maintenance, and, after-all, this is an encyclopedia. I feel that my activity in this area demonstrates a reasonable understanding of policy/guidelines. I strive to approach these discussions thoughtfully and eschew the infamous "per nom". Although, sometimes "per noms" are entirely correct. 457:: In addition to making numerous requests for both full and semi-protection, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, making notations/comments when and where I feel they are relevant/appropriate. This was done to aid administrators. Sometimes having two opinions (either conflicting or in concordance) can shed new light on a situation involving full scale edit warring or anon vandalism. 4721:-reasoning to continue the opposition. His participation at RFA seems very rarely based off thorough analysis or familiarity with candidates. Is his participation elsewhere based off more? My comment could probably be considered superficial as well--I would contend much less so than guesswork based off Interiot's tool--but you'll also note that I'm neutral. -- 3140:. This is a candidacy constructed entirely out of "admin coaching". He's had people teaching him how to do and say the right things to get promoted since his last RfA, and several of those mentors piled on to support this RfA before it was even transcluded. Despite all this coaching -- and ironically, given his username -- he still doesn't actually show the 519:(even though it reminds me of graduate school). While currently lacking sources, my scientific background encouraged me to work diligently to expand it to a fairly decent level. Apart from article building, I feel that I am a solid and meticulous vandal fighter as evidenced by my contributions. Yes, I primarily use 1755:. I can think of perhaps only one non-admin (at least of those who I think will seek it) who is more qualified for the position than Wisdom89. I am sure once he has the tools, he will have a very strong positive effect on the project. Best of luck, and thank you for finally throwing your nomination in here. :P 2479:- appears trustworthy. The concern below over the supports before the transclusion is utterly ridiculous and has no bearing upon his actions as an administrator. I also don't believe that his RfA votes, although I may disagree with some of them, have any bearing on his ability to conduct administrator tasks. 4739:

circumstances will I oppose based on a lack of namespace contributions. And it is never solely based on edit count. For instance, if the candidate wishes to work in "insert random admin-related userspace here" and then has a half dozen edits to those areas, if any at all, then I will oppose. I direct

3980:

Agree, what an unfair oppose. For one thing, it's completely false there were 7 users (there were 4, 3 who were supposed to be there, so that brings us down to one) and another thing is assuming bad faith that it was mentioned on IRC. How ridiculous. Ghirla, get your facts straight before making such

3954:

I'm sorry, I find that unacceptable. If you wish to oppose by all means do so, but do not make slights on other editors and get your facts right. There were four supports prior to transclusion, of which three where nominators. As nominator I specfically asked people not to comment before transclusion

3144:

necessary to be an admin. He doesn't think through his actions very carefully. I've seen him in particular at UAA, where he is far too quick to recommend blocks based on incomplete understanding. All it takes is another incautious admin, and then we've got an inappropriate block being placed. If this

2301:

Absolutely. User has demonstrated commitment to the project and, equally important, a willingness to learn from mistakes and ask assistance when required (as coaching page shows). I hope user continues his excellent contributions. Also, I would note that I tend to disagree with user in RfAs, but I am

413:

If granted the tools, I plan on concentrating my administrator efforts initially in areas that I am comfortable with, and have sufficient experience in. Now, for those areas which I have ‘’not’’ yet versed myself in, I have absolutely no qualms or reservations about starting off patiently and slowly,

3044:

Hey Deacon, I appreciate you taking the time to offer your view on things. Just in my defense, if I were simply interested in the status of obtaining the mop, do you really think I'd be at the help and reference desks? Also, I would like to just gently point you in the direction of, well the obvious

682:

I am definitely leaning towards a support (possibly even a strong one), but I do have a question/comment that I'd like you to address before I cast my !vote. You, like me, are one of the more critical reviewers in the RfA process. Generally, when I see you supporting a candidate, it is a good sign

4171:

When this page was first placed on the RfA list, there were 4 !votes (3 of which were nom supports). All of us who had made the mistake of !voting before transclusion, removed them and apologised. You are simply using this as an excuse. As Pedro said, if you want to oppose thats fine. But please go

2514:

I'm almost ashamed of some of my fellow Wikipedians after reading through the opposes. Honestly, having pre-existing strong support from Wikipedians at the time of nomination is not a reason to oppose. If seven Wikipedians believe that he should be an SysOp and mobilize to that effect, more power

3715:

Only partly directed at you GC, it just happents to be the next place to type! I appreciate there are other concerns, but to structure opposes based on the candidates RFA opposes seems a little odd. This isn't an RFB. I'm not sure I understand the extension of poor RFA oppose = poor judgement with

450:

is sound. You'll notice I've made hundreds of reports to UAA. There were a few slip ups I'm sure (I can be honest), but, I am constantly refining my understanding of the policy, as it seems to be kind of capricious. In other words, this area requires a judgment call a majority of the time, and not

77:

At this point I feel there is virtually no chance of this RfA succeeding and thus I am going to withdraw my nomination. I want to thank everybody who decided to participate and offer up helpful criticism. If one of my co-nominators would do the honors, or a crat, please close this RfA. An enormous

3487:

based on answers to questions, concerns about the editor's excessive desire for a mop (per nom, per so many RfA's in row as well as responses to oppose and neutral votes) and lack of significant interest in creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack the latter reason. I am well aware

3116:

Sorry man, you've clearly been gunning for this. Adminship is no big deal, the only problem with adminship are people who think it is a big deal. I appreciate you've got a few decent contributions (as I acknowledged), but a handful of link-stacked band articles don't make up for the stats on this

556:

at all costs), but, in their enthusiasm, ended up decorating the article with unencyclopedic content. It was a little frustrating, but, the situations were diffused quickly and without major incident with discussion on the talk page, a place I tend to immediately direct users to when a potential

505:

article reach featured article status. I suppose this is what I am most known for, as it was my first major task on Knowledge (XXG). I am still the primary contributor to the article, and to this day, along with a few other wonderful editors, still keep a watchful and vigilant eye on it, removing

288:

I have had the pleasure of working with Wisdom over my 11 months or so here, and have the pleasure of con-nominating him. Wisdom is an RfA regular who always ensures that candidates are well rounded in areas that require the mop, and I know that he by far excels his own admin requirements. I have

3027:

User may now be "cabal approved", but does not come across as an article builder (a few decent contributions though), rather clear career mandarin more interested in obtaining a mop than building free knowledge. We need no more of these. Sorry to those who don't like my reasoning, but this is an

3196:

indefinitely hardblocked. I explained to both of them that "hacker" does not always mean "I AM GOING TO DISRUPT THIS SITE", and that it has a positive connotation referring to programming or engineering skill among geeks. Neither of them really grasped the fact that this was about as far from a

654:

IRC is a user-friendly means for communication that I have used in the past for various reasons, but, not specifically for discussions pertaining to Knowledge (XXG). Unfortunately, that means that I am unfamiliar with the channel you refer to. I have clients installed on my computer where I can

4382:

I feel that a candidate who views the tools as too dear may not act properly with them. An administrator who forgets that the tools are no big deal is a big problem. Before everyone rebukes me, I am well aware that adminship is no longer widely perceived to be "no big deal," however, the tools

4220:

Stop with the "admin coaching" nonsense already. We need people with a clue, not just people who try to learn how to get promoted. It's what happens after promotion that's important. Many good reasons for opposition are given above (along with a few bad ones.) Too bureaucratic, not enough

4063:

entitled to state that this RFA has been subject to some kind of IRC based movement to make it pass. If s/he even bothered to look at my slender contributions over the last few days s/he would see exactly how opposed I am to pre-transclusion voting. I stand by my comment. Ghrila is entitled to

3869:

Need to avoid scaring off new contributors with inappropriate speedy deletions. The criteria were created to avoid it as much as possible, so the natural assumption is that deleting outside the criteria without a very good reason will lead to the loss of potential contributors. Per DarkFalls'

3492:

and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a

2076:

before the users have even edited are the two most obvious items--but for every time I've been less-than-happy with his edits there are ten times when I've thanked my lucky stars that he's around. He's smart, capable, and the very definition of a net positive to the project. He'll do great.

573:

Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than

1267:

I thought I recalled a good experience with this user so I checked by archives but to no avail. It must just have been a good impression (unless you helped me some other place than my talk page). Anyway I see this user around loads...very hardworking...and per 602 Usernames for administrator

3833:

Per rspeer and DarkFalls, amongst others. Usually these things wouldn't be such an issue for me, but after three RfAs and extensive coaching it's harder to ignore. The UAA reports in particular are concerning - that place is a hive of newbie biting on a good day, I'd rather not add another

4869:

I like you answer to my question and I've liked your contributions here. But I do have some concerns about some of the issues raised by the opposes. I need to take a closer look at your other contributions before supporting. (I can't see myself opposing, but don't know if I can support

2178:

A recent revert by Wisdom89, during this process, was not followed up with an explanation to a new user. As such, I can't fully support anymore, because he should know about such things by now. (Edit was AGF style, not vandalism, and explanation would've been appropriate. I provided one.)

329:. With a keen eye, a coherent adherance to policy (his recent contributions can be the supporting evidence for this) & general 'wiki-rules' and a delightful medium between quiet and outlandish, he has a calm and sincere enthusiasm for furthering the cause of the encyclopedia. Always 2854:. I asked that people hold off prior to transclusion. If they did or didn't, I hardly see how it effects Wisdom's capability to be an administrator. However as nominator I have gone to the best lengths I can to not present the community with a done deal, something I feel strongly about. 4854:

rspeer and darkfall provide worrisome diffs, so I'm leaning towards oppose. But the edit summaries show a nuanced understanding of vandalism and unconstructive but good faith edits. Attempting to talk to a user called fickducker, rather than just reporting to UAA, is a good sign too.

316:. Okay, maybe you've already got a good enough idea of how Wisdom operates from the two exquisite (co)nominations above. So, I'll try to be a little original here. I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my gratitude for Wisdom's work here on Knowledge (XXG), which over this 2749:

There was a total of four votes on transclusion. 3 were nominator votes, which is perfectly acceptable. There was just one which might not be acceptable. This oppose is, however, completely unfair, nothing to do with the candidate or admin duties, and should thus be disqualified.

4114:. This may well, as you state, be literal in that it is just a "feeling". Where I to type that I have a "feeling" that editor X is a sockpuppet of editor Y I would be asked to produce evidence or shut up. I'm sorry, and Wisdom's RFA is not the place for this. However I take 3327:

Hi Rspeer, I was going to remain silent on this topic, but I kindly request that you take a look at my recent reports, bar the hacker user, and point out where I'm making these repeated errors. I view the RfA as a learning process as well. Any kind of feedback is helpful.

4118:

exception to the implication that I, Rudget, Tiptoey (by the extension that we nominated) and other editors have colluded in some way. I've dealt straight on Knowledge (XXG), and to see these allegations against myself and other editors is disappointing to say the least.

4716:

opposes on RFA. Not-enough-X-space-edits, indifferent-toward-the-tools type rationales. Lack of experience is a valid concern, but if an overwhelming body of evidence has been presented that though low in number the edits are extremely high-quality, it is the dreaded

3928:- I'm not certain if its just rush to judgment, but I see too many recent mistakes when tagging for deletion. I'm not sure if you're tagging for the sake of tagging, but I would advise slowing down. Everyone makes mistakes in this area (I certainly have) when rushing. 647:

What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel.

235:

since his last RFA. He has accepted both my counsel and that of others in many areas; He has not requested admin tools until others felt he was ready - a stance that does him credit. In addition I see Wisdom's comments often across WP, and I feel he balances being

1478:

Wisdom is a terrific example of an editor who I don't agree with 100% (granted, it's like 95%), but for whom I still have great respect. An excellent editor, thoughtful contributions, policy driven. These are the kind of hands in which we need to place the tools.

4155:

I am deeply disappointed this oppose has cropped up, for two reasons. Unprecedented allegations that we somehow worked together in a conspiracy to 'push this guy through' are completely unacceptable, as is the idea that somehow IRC has been used. The only time I

3268:

can make the right choices without being told what to do and how to do it. You seem to be a great editor, and I see much improvement from your last RfA, but I would have liked to see a bit more time between the coaching and this RfA to see how you really do. -

357:). Most of all, however, Wisdom is consistent in his approach to the opinions of others and is willing to make sure that others voices are heard–in addition to this, his manner is persistently harmonious, with this being confirmed by his involvement in both the 4021:

When he accepted it completely irrelevant. The point is when it was transcluded to the main RfA page. At that point, there were 4 supports, not 7. Acceptance is not a requirement, and it was obvious he would accept, as this RfA has been in planning for weeks.

3541:

as A1 (no context) is questionable. On the article, it clearly states "Coastal Forces base ... This base existed 194* to 1945 as a repair and base for Coastal Forces boats." Doesn't bother checking the history before asking for deletion of a clearly notable

2813:

I'm going to also agree with Majorly. If that was a case of biting a newbie, that was about the most toothless bite I've ever seen. That and the idea of opposing someone because they were supported before the RfA was transcluded is downright nonsensical.

514:

promoted to Good Article standing not too long ago. An attempt was made to nominate it for FA status as well. Despite it failing, it likely represents my next editorial project and I'm looking forward to it. Another article I am particularly fond of is

2889:

But Wisdom89 has no right to remove users comments. And even if he did, do you really think this has any relevance on whether Wisdom89 is going to be a good admin or not? Even if you think it was his mistake, don't you think people deserve at least

1315:

I have known Wisdom for a while, and I have seen his tireless contributions. I actually thought Wisdom was already an admin for some reason, probably because of how well he has done here. I think that Wisdom will be a great user to give the tools to.

4433:

That's the second question in a row you've asked in a way which makes it look like you didn't read the thing you're responding to. That Wisdom "had the attitude of wanting to antagonise" is the (very obvious) problem here, not the making a mistake.

1775:

Per DarkFalls' diffs, I am far less strong in my support. I am still supporting because I think the net positive remains, but please try to be more careful in the future. I can't say I feel the RfA standards opposes sway me at all, though.

551:

There were a few spats on the Rush article in the past that I was involved in, along with other main editors of the page. We had to deal with some (I hate to use the term) "POV pushing" by obvious fans who wanted to positively contribute

632:

I feel that I could, with equity, decide upon and enforce restrictions on users who abuse Knowledge (XXG) or have a long history of persistent disruption. It is vital to preserving a smooth and non-abrasive editing process. I'm not sure

1542:

I have known Wisdom89 for a very long time on Knowledge (XXG). Of any editor I have crossed paths with he is certainly one who understands what Knowledge (XXG) is all about. A dedicated editor and a candidate long overdue for the mop.

3554:

tagging was plain ridiculous. An actress appearing in four extremely popular (as well as notable) films/tv series is clearly an assertion. May I remind everyone that the diffs listed above only extend to March 17 2008, a month ago.

3367:

that not everyone who self-identifies with mild profanity needs to be thrown out the door before they edit? That's the one that Tiptoety referred to on admin coaching, so if that's not what you learned, what did you learn instead?

3203:

I don't know, you could possibly put that one down to lack of sleep or something, but it wasn't the first time I had encountered him misusing UAA. The first time I removed two of his reports and notified him about it, he replied,

2632:

I was unable to reach a computer last night to accept the nomination - Wasn't even aware it was there until just a few minutes ago. However, I fail to see why hasty or enthusiastic support from other editor's should weigh against

4273:

Per poor judgment in the deletion area, as shown by DarkFalls, per Rspeer also. I have the concerns of Friday and others too, though I don't oppose for that, I never trusted admin coaching and I think that it spoils the process.

473:: It is a rarity not to see this page backlogged/overflowing with nominations that require careful analysis and a conscientious mind. I am confident in my ability to perform clearance/deletions tasks accurately and thoughtfully. 369:). With this in mind (and in light of the co-nominations above), I am pleased to offer Wisdom for the community's consideration which, I am hoping, will see there is a potential administrator in the user (and person) that is, 4042:

With all due respect, Ghirla is entitled to have his own opinion and voice it with regards to what is and is not a "requirement" or acceptable. His concern is seemingly the premeditation of it all, which you are confirming.

2690:

Four of the supports were here prior to transclusion. TheProf07's was added 22 seconds after it was transcluded. The other two (of the 7 that were there at George The Dragon's posting) were also added after transclusion.

3263:

Per the above, especially the comments by Rspeer. Admins are picked for their judgment and their ability to make good decisions on their own. I see you've worked well with Pedro, and that's great, but I need to see that

2668:, at which point there were already seven support !votes. The community then see the RFA for the first time and it has seven !votes, all for support and I'm not comfortable with that. There have been concerns raised about 106:

hereafter known simply as Wisdom. A long term user, Wisdom really became active in June of 2007. With over 14,000 edits plus about 1,800 deleted contributions both tenure and contribution level are not a concern. I

4068:

that there is off-wiki activity and collusion is, bluntly, rude. He should not reconsider his oppose in light of this. But he should either produce evidence of collusion or retract that part of his oppose comment.

1524:

Has overcame the issues raised in earlier and also taken Admin coaching from Pedro which shows both his commitment and desire and willingness to react positively to the points raised in earlier RFA.Great track and

3622:

Everytime I saw Wisdom89 opposing someone at RfA, it's always about "lack of experience in X-area". He's a big fan of edit count and his actions speaks for itself even though he claims that he's not a fan of edit

4580:

Unfortunately, too many RFAs too soon per Kurt. Adminship is no big deal, and that extends for not having it as much as having it. We don't need the bit to write articles, do research, and lend a useful opinion.

320:

he has been contributing in, has been fantastic. I have been impressed by Wisdom's extended desire and willingness to be a part of this project, with a large proportion of his editing tenure being placed in the

4221:

judgement. Those trying to teach people how to pass RFA, rather than teaching people what the project is about, should seriously reconsider whether their actions are helpful or harmful to the encyclopedia.

1818:

I'm more than positive Wisdom is ready for the tools. He understand all the policies well, and has done a good amount of both article and vandalism work since his time here. He has a massive 602 reports to

1253:- I'm a little bit of a nitpicker myself, so it is not that often that an admin candidate comes along that I can't dig up a single thing that I find troubling about them... but here it is. Give'em the mop. 2938:

Yeah, but it can hurt people's sensibility, the way a request for adminship is presented and the behavior of the co nominators matter. Ironically, it could have been worse, at a time, it were going to be

659:. If the channel is open to all Wikipedians, then it's a terrific way for editors to contact administrators that were involved in a prior incident, perhaps an absent response to an unblock request. The 4343:

per DarkFalls, and even without that, "I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions", when you've just been called on an incorrect report, was enough on its own.

3595:

Isn't it more important that he knew the pages met the speedy delete criteria than it is that he knew which template to use? And, if he becomes an admin, he won't need to use those templates anymore.--

3959:

RFA on IRC - I barely even use the medium). As I say, if you want to oppose do so, but oppose based on facts and evidence not a wild accusation that is both untrue and derogatory to other editors.

4492: 3698:

Gotta say no here, per DarkFalls and definitely per JayHenry. I've seen Wisdom oppose some pretty damn good RfA candidates. DF's diffs were worrying as well, and the points he made were valid.

1593:

I have always had the utmost respect for Wisdom89 and I was very surprised to find he was not an admin already when I first encountered him. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting him.

4106:

I believe that further input is now without value. However I'm pressed to make this matter clear. Ghrila has mistakenly asserted the number of supports prior to transclusion was seven, per ,

4693: 2875:

That's fair, but as we are being asked, to an extent, whether we trust the user's judgement, I can't help but feel the right judgement would have been to remove the pre-transcluded !vote.

2730:(ec) I, too, think that this has more to deal with those who commented early and less to do with Wisdom. How should he have responded when he found that this request already had comments? 3464:, Rspeer's evidence of lack of common sense regarding username blocks and the subsequent defence (which I hope no one ever uses), my personal dislike for "coached" factory-made admins. - 3652:

Well if we base everything on edit count, wouldn't it create some elitism? Unwillingness to block someone with 100,000 edits while blocking someone with 10,000 is not exactly ideal... —

418:

or a talk page for instance. When one becomes an administrator, they don't stop learning. The following is a brief enumeration of those areas where I feel I can be an immediate asset:

694: 400:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

3817:, per rspeer's diffs on UAA. The fact Wisdom89 has been coached extensively yet still exhibits poor judgement is disconcerting; I don't think he'd make a good admin at this time. 1839:. He has been contributing since 2006, which is enough experience, and has maintained perfect edit summary usage since November 2007. I'm sure he will make a great administrator. 698: 608:

recent changes and see numerous instances of recalcitrant (or completely silent) reversions. Will I make the call without a report to 3RR? The short answer..yes. With respect to

689:

Excellent comment. I'll do my best to address this. I'll start off by intimating about how I casted my !votes at RfA when I first began participating in the discussions. The

4894: 754: 256:

to Knowledge (XXG). I find that Wisdom will be that, and more, by granting admin rights. I hope the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action.

3945:. Seven supports before the community has been given a chance to comment? I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized to push this guy through, and I don't like it. -- 3363:

is pretty recent, and actually got blocked due to your very borderline report. (The admin who blocked her, of course, shares the blame.) Shouldn't you have learned from

3529:

is also bad judgement. The article is definitely not complete nonsense (mashing the keyboard repeatedly for example.) and cannot qualify as completely nonsensical. See

2790:

I'm going to have to agree with Majorly here. The votes (minus one) were acceptable, and the example of "biting newbies" is anything but. In fact, that example is the

2072:- There are a couple of habits that I wish Wisdom89 would reconsider--an apparent over-reliance on edit counts at RfA and a tendency to report borderline usernames to 545:

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?

3197:

situation that required hardblocking as you could get. Wisdom didn't stop to read the dictionary link I provided, or even (apparently) the entirety of my message; he

3509:

was tagged as A1. I cannot understand how "Calling code +1-868 is the calling code of Trinidad and tobago" fails to identify the subject of the article. Isn't it a

4090:

Pedro, Ghirla's not psychic and he didn't say that, he just voiced his "feel"ing of some kind of pre-orchestration, which frankly is understandable. All the best,

523:

to perform my actions, but, I feel that I use it quite efficaciously. Lastly, I enjoy aiding users in basic Knowledge (XXG) operation, so my contributions to the

115:

on the basis of concerns that Wisdom would be more hindernce than help. Those concerns are now gone. A review of Wisdom's contributions should show the following;

3586:

Think of it if he had the tools. Unfortunately deletion of the topic can cause much more harm and can strain the servers; given the amount of revisions it has. —

781: 776: 771: 112: 231:

Hard though it is to gauge via a text medium, I have personally found Wisdom to be friendly, thoughtful, and ready to adapt and learn. I believe he has come on

4912: 4176:

reason! As for the conspiracy about us all getting together on IRC to push this RfA through, thats clearly assuming bad faith and quite frankly ridiculous.

4160:

use IRC is when I query anothers actions or enquire about certain aspects of something. Saying that we have used this medium abusviely is totally off mark.

3359:

Well, you're still reporting names for "unnecessary use of profanity" when they wouldn't actually offend anyone who's mature enough to use Knowledge (XXG).

2051:. A no-brainer to me. Wisdom89 should be an admin. He knows his stuff, is experienced, communicates, works hard, what more could I ask for? This will reach 1277: 766: 4256:

already a sysop due to his vigorous participation in Knowledge (XXG) areas but the diffs offered by Rspeer concern me about his ability to be an admin. --

3537:

is also troubling. Does a professional football player playing for three of Hungary's top football clubs show no assertion of notability whatsoever? Also

2995: 1855: 1268:

attention 247 Administrator intervention against vandalism 224 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 197 Help desk. This user will go far! Best of luck!--

823: 4422:

Errmmm.. "misread" implies you feel he made a mistake? Have we not all made mistakes? How is misreading a post at AN show possible abuse of the tools?

2920:

Another thing to point out would be that, in the event of this RfA's success, Wisdom will never be placed in that situation again. It's irrelevant.--

4692:

The contributions adduced by Rspeer and Darkfalls, et al., prevent me from concluding with anything near the appropriate degree of confidence that

451:

everyone agrees what constitutes a blatant offense. For those names which are ambiguous, I have taken the time to use the usernameconcern template.

3287:, I think this shows a willingness to learn and improve from mistakes which we all have made, especially when it comes to the username policy. 612:, if I was involved in the Arbcom case, made a statement, or provided evidence, I would be willing to take action if probation was compromised. 810: 2669: 4595: 3888: 3737:

My opposition isn't based on that, but I believe their reasoning is that it shows double standards (not a desirable trait in an admin). --

1740: 4828: 4639:

Mainly per Friday and Giano. I've noticed Wisdom mainly through his participation here at RfA, and I'm not comfortable with what I see.

2908: 2839: 1128: 972: 853: 2989:(outdent} Well, I can't resist, and I trust Wisdom will understand that even in the midst of this stressful time for him we can have a 2962:. It was only meant to be Pedro, Tiptoety and myself. Of course, the others would support and hopefully I didn't offend them too much. 2539:

anyone who present the community with such a fait accompli. Seven supports before the community has chance to comment? That's not fair

847: 30: 17: 2802: 1214: 467:, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, offering my advice, dropping comments and seeing if I can help diffuse situations neutrally. 4314:- sorry, but I'm not sure of Wisdom's... wisdom... yet. I share rspeer's concerns about some UAA comments and misunderstandings. - 139:

A simple glance at the associated article talk pages as above, and their histories, shows evidence of Wisdom's desire to collaborate.

3298:

If he's learning so much from mistakes, why does he keep making the same ones? Clearly on a page about "admin coaching" you have to

2443:- nice guy, but his answer to Q1 is the sort of vague nonsense that candidates spiel if they spend too much time in admin coaching. 2429: 1849: 898: 817: 2249:- The admin coaching shows skills and the editor seems trustworthy. Also I wasn't convinced by any oppose argument thus given. - 1637: 1530: 1168:

Damnit, I was going to vote pre-tranclusion but for the rather catching notice in the discussion section. A+++++++++++++ eBayer.

4190: 2719: 2567: 2162: 1970:

Maaan, stuff of that stuff down there is really concerning. Might come back to this. Might not. I'm still supporting, for now.

1698: 1101: 949: 750: 3676:

I am not sure what "double standard" you are referring to. I think Wisdom by far exceeds his requirements for admin hopefuls.

4776: 4564: 4472: 4096: 4049: 4011: 3606: 3434: 3348: 3123: 3105: 3034: 2931: 2653: 2621: 2331: 2119: 2086: 1368: 1239: 870: 803: 97: 596:, I trust I can make an equitable judgment call on users who undermine the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) by , say, consistently 4750:

here I opposed based on lack of experience coupled with a distorted idea of adminship which left a bitter taste in my mouth

4328:- Really do not agree with his admin standards, but that's not enough for me to oppose. The recent wrong csd taggings are. 1978: 1956: 1281: 2705:

I'm !vote number 5, and this RfA was already transcluded when i cast it! (This comment is late because of edit conflict)

349:), maximises his position without the use of administrative tools and makes comments which are relative to their target ( 4617: 3028:

encyclopedia and its admin group needs better balance in the opposite direction from where this promotion will take us.

2235: 1900: 1841: 1612: 1341:

A competent user, often seen around the admin-related sites, and very competent therein. Will do well with the tools. --

3530: 2880: 2677: 2584: 2544: 2193:

I don't see much reason to oppose. This contributor is reasonable and civil, which is what we need in administrators.

1948:

of his RfA comments have been sucky, IMO). But otherwise, he's awesome. (Neil Peart made FA? Why didn't you tell me!)

1526: 910: 3661:

Tiptoety, it means that Wisdom89 has double standards. And that makes me not trusting this user to gain extra tools.

389:

accept the nomination from Mr. Pedro. My appreciation goes out to the co-nominators as well. Let the process begin.

4452:

since I've never made any comments there to my knowledge (unless you mean ANI), may I have a diff for this please?

4238: 2019: 1347: 958:

And don't you think if the community endorses him that much that just maybe he is just that well-known and trusted?

1087:

Fantastic editor, knows what he's doing! I have no doubts he will make one of the best admins on wikipedia today.

4091: 4044: 4006: 3284: 3118: 3029: 2959: 1145:

I think Wisdom89 will be a great administrator. I've seen plenty of solid contributions since the January RfA.

506:

vandalism, fostering discussion involving minor content disputes, and maintaining its overall integrity without

187: 173: 2269: 4589: 3933: 3892: 1972: 1950: 1735: 1668: 3521:

was also questionable. The web page has reliable sources and is mentioned in multiple books. Surely that's an

3237:

Deacon and rspeer sum it up pretty nicely. I've seen this RfA coming for a long time (which is a bad thing).

362: 4787:

How on earth is 10 months experience, 30,000 edits, a good article and a featured list "lack of experience"?

4824: 4371:

But this is an RfA, not a RfB. What does his opinions in !voting on a RfA have to do with use of the tools?

2904: 2835: 2287: 2231: 2002: 1573: 1124: 968: 414:

deferring to more experienced administrators before any action is taken, checking up or leaving a notice at

252: 4357:

This user's previous oppose votes on RfAs lead me to believe that this user does not understand adminship.

3955:(check the RFA history). And finally I have never discussed this RFA on IRC (indeed I have never discussed 886: 4388: 4362: 2876: 2673: 2580: 2540: 2307: 906: 557:

conflict arises. Hey, editing inevitably gets hot. Other than this, I cannot think of any other conflicts.

4713: 2597:

the newbies. And considering the username, I feel that my concern was justified. It was likely a profane

4745: 4712:

I have concerns about this user's judgment. My primary encounter with Wisdom is through his relentless

4679: 4234: 4211: 3667: 3632: 3238: 2502: 2032: 2015: 1998: 1488: 1342: 1001: 894: 721: 4893:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

4879: 4861: 4849: 4835: 4802: 4782: 4741: 4730: 4700: 4684: 4665: 4648: 4634: 4621: 4601: 4570: 4539: 4504: 4478: 4441: 4428: 4417: 4392: 4377: 4366: 4349: 4335: 4320: 4306: 4284: 4265: 4242: 4228: 4215: 4194: 4166: 4135: 4101: 4085: 4054: 4037: 4016: 3996: 3975: 3949: 3937: 3916: 3896: 3879: 3864: 3844: 3828: 3809: 3792: 3768: 3747: 3732: 3707: 3682: 3671: 3656: 3647: 3636: 3608: 3590: 3581: 3559: 3497: 3479: 3458: 3440: 3388: 3354: 3322: 3293: 3278: 3241: 3228: 3183: 3169: 3128: 3111: 3039: 3016: 2968: 2953: 2933: 2915: 2884: 2870: 2846: 2820: 2808: 2785: 2765: 2744: 2723: 2700: 2681: 2659: 2627: 2588: 2571: 2548: 2524: 2506: 2489: 2471: 2452: 2435: 2419: 2400: 2372: 2355: 2338: 2311: 2292: 2282: 2276: 2258: 2241: 2217: 2202: 2188: 2166: 2146: 2123: 2100: 2064: 2043: 2023: 2006: 1997:

Third time lucky, you deserve this i have seen you all over the place and you will make a great admin.

1987: 1965: 1931: 1910: 1887: 1871: 1810: 1791: 1770: 1747: 1719: 1703: 1662: 1643: 1622:

A dedicated, thoughtful editor who gets involved and, in my view, always provides insightful comments.

1614: 1577: 1554: 1534: 1516: 1493: 1470: 1449: 1422: 1393: 1370: 1349: 1333: 1307: 1285: 1259: 1245: 1220: 1198: 1177: 1163: 1154: 1135: 1105: 1079: 1068: 1051: 1037: 1006: 979: 953: 928: 914: 866: 726: 379: 303: 272: 203: 70: 4753: 2696: 4875: 4627: 4500: 4413: 4344: 4261: 3716:

tools. Poor AFD commentary I would agree, but RFA is much more subjective. Just my thoughts, really.

3703: 3193: 3179: 2448: 2254: 4178: 2707: 2555: 2108:- as per previous. Agree with JayHenry's points but feel will ultimately be a net positive. Cheers, 1676:

I can't believe Wisdom wasn't already an admin. Excellent candidate. IMHO, this is merely turning a

1299:- Per disagreeing with the ridiculous oppose + only having good encounters with this user. Regards, 1146: 1089: 937: 920: 520: 4757: 4749: 4583: 4545: 4453: 4423: 4372: 4184: 3929: 3787: 3677: 3642: 3576: 3514: 3415: 3360: 3329: 3288: 3192:

we had on his talk page. He and Tiptoety (who happens to be one of his nominators!) got the newbie

3086: 2713: 2634: 2602: 2561: 2214: 1919: 1730: 1696: 1440: 1150: 1095: 1046: 1021:

Per my nomination and everyone's desire to make Knowledge (XXG) a better place for our readership.

943: 924: 793: 746: 298: 279: 102: 87: 3393:

Thanks for responding. Well, yes, I believe I have made a conscious effort in this area actually:

637:

which policy restrictions I would invent, but, 1RR and 2RR are absolutely reasonable stipulations.

605: 593: 4856: 4817: 4766: 4726: 4554: 4462: 4332: 4315: 4282: 4161: 3805: 3764: 3601: 3424: 3338: 3189: 3095: 2963: 2951: 2926: 2897: 2828: 2692: 2643: 2611: 2481: 2387: 2326: 2198: 2139: 2113: 2093: 1784: 1763: 1564: 1415: 1386: 1363: 1235: 1117: 1074: 961: 797: 374: 313: 91: 3074: 2174:

Seen significant improvements in his awareness of other aspects of the project since prior RfA.

656: 589: 581: 437: 1827:

which both show experience in two key admin areas. In the articlespace, Wisdom has helped make

4844: 4814:

Switch to neutral per rspeer's links. I still can't put myself in the oppose category though.

4797: 4661: 4384: 4358: 4032: 3991: 3911: 3859: 3565: 3472: 3274: 2825:

I say we cease this convo, I have trust in our bureaucrats that they will disregard this vote.

2795: 2780: 2760: 2466: 2414: 2368: 2303: 2184: 2060: 1806: 1549: 1464: 1273: 1207: 580:

As a general editor myself, and having encountered instances of content dispute, breaching of

2272: 597: 528: 464: 454: 237: 158: 4674: 4614: 4438: 4225: 4207: 3946: 3875: 3662: 3627: 3550:, as with EqWorld, also demonstrates an assertion of notability; and the tagging was wrong. 3380: 3314: 3220: 3161: 2520: 2498: 2351: 2228: 1905: 1713: 1610: 1508: 1480: 993: 890: 713: 4484: 2891: 2427:. I cannot recall any significant negative interactions with the candidate. Sincerely, -- 2073: 2052: 1824: 1820: 1653: 985: 712:

For the record, Balloonman's thoughts above have crossed my mind, too. Excellent response!

706: 664: 601: 585: 553: 507: 498: 476: 470: 460: 443: 429: 415: 365:

program. He also takes time to reconsider his rationales and often re-writes his opinions (

162: 154: 150: 4871: 4496: 4409: 4257: 4128: 4078: 3968: 3725: 3699: 3175: 3062: 3009: 2863: 2444: 2250: 1624: 1596: 1325: 1302: 1030: 516: 265: 4488: 4449: 4405: 2851:

Whilst not wishing to bang on about this, I'd respectfully ask George to view this diff.

1836: 919:

Seven--I apparently beat him by a minute--but my support was at least post-transclusion.

609: 532: 524: 447: 3887:

per OhanaUnited - Wisdom89's double standard-isms are unforgivable in the short-term. --

4644: 3823: 3781: 3653: 3587: 3570: 3556: 2815: 2211: 2156: 1685: 1433: 1254: 1060: 709:". If they have not done so, that's a warning flag. I hope that answers your question. 67: 3206:"I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions." 1430:

per KojiDude. Wisdom acts with calm sureness, I trust that he won't misuse the tools.

4906: 4722: 4697: 4408:

recently and had the attitiude of wanting to antagonise rather then be constructive.

4329: 4276: 3801: 3760: 3596: 3070: 3054: 2945: 2921: 2393: 2381: 2321: 2194: 2134: 2109: 2078: 1779: 1758: 1658: 1410: 1380: 1358: 1230: 1173: 129: 4694:

the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive

4841: 4789: 4518: 4293: 4110:. So this is factually in error and demonstrably so. Secondly, Ghrila asserts that 4024: 3983: 3903: 3851: 3510: 3465: 3412: 3270: 3247: 3082: 2772: 2752: 2461: 2409: 2364: 2180: 2056: 1881: 1865: 1823:

so I know he will definitely be an active member there. He also has 247 reports to

1802: 1628: 1544: 1459: 1269: 1160: 4657: 440:

when it comes to IPs and registered users, and it has served me well didactically.

4746:

here I changed my neutral stance to Support based on trust and the user's answers

1684:

and giving him the technical ability to delete pages, block users, and the like.

988:. Apparently, Wisdom89 does not meet the standards of "no big deal". This RfA is 4610: 4435: 4222: 3871: 3836: 3739: 3406: 3369: 3303: 3209: 3150: 3046: 2516: 2347: 1895: 1828: 1605: 1502: 1402: 1389: 502: 290: 125: 4495:, rather then give one id thought it more informative to see it all together. 4122: 4072: 3962: 3719: 3494: 3050: 3003: 2958:

Hmm.. it wasn't meant to be six co-noms (that'd be outrageous!!) as discussed

2857: 2732: 2598: 1832: 1317: 1186: 1024: 905:

Six supports before the candidate accepted? I'm not too comfortable with that

702: 565: 511: 294: 259: 133: 79: 4887:

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3174:

Could you provide some examples/difs substantiating his rash behavior at UAA?

4640: 3818: 3403: 3302:

you're learning from mistakes, but I'd need to see something to back it up.

3078: 2380:. Good editor, obvious dedication to the project. Excellent nomination. 3490:

interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia

3397: 4735:

Hey Jay, thanks for the comment. I just wanted to highlight that only in

4491:, still my mistake because I should of checked directly). The section is 3564:

Just to let you know, Wisdom fixed his mistake in a matter of seconds on

3066: 1457:. I had a really long rationale for this, but I beleated it. Oh well. 1169: 663:

utilization of said channel would be discussion of open Arbcom cases and

54: 3400: 3394: 4840:

Was going to support, but the diffs presented by DarkFalls concern me.

4005:!). So Ghirla is right and you can't blame him for smelling the worst. 3409: 4544:

Scripted?? Please assume good faith. It was written extemporaneously.

3461: 2894:? I mean this "mistake" has nothing to do with adminship, whatsoever. 1206:

More than ready to be an admin. In fact, I thought he was an admin. --

4897:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

4742:

here I oppose on lack of experience coupled with questionable answers

4001:

Marjoly and Pedro, there were seven supports before Wisdom accepted (

3849:

Per DarkFalls. I don't think I can trust him to delete stuff wisely.

1595:

the only reason it took me so long to !vote was because I wanted to

250:

nominate unless I believed a candidate was both ready and will be a

206:

contributions demonstrating a thorough policy / guideline knowledge.

869:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 176:

shows how well Wisdom both responded and learnt from a minor error.

3058: 1674:(at risk of being called out for being called out for frivolity) 984:

I would like to submit this RfA as Exhibit A of Wikipedians vs.

600:

and abusing the above policies/guidelines. Do I plan to enforce

57: 3505:. I see too many incorrect speedy deletion tags. For example: 491:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?

2943:, the nominators made their best to solve the issue I think. 100:) - Fellow editors, I am delighted to offer up for adminship 1562:

have seen his work about the 'pedia, and it's impressive. --

172:

and able to respond to occasional errors. A quick review of

1918:

WTF are you doing not being an admin? Stop that right now!

337:

his ideas over the various project boards, he aids others (

695:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5

574:

vandalizing editor? Do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?

4252:

per Rspeer. Seems to be a decent editor and I thought he

2593:

Username concerns/templates are specifically designed to

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3208:. A stunning defense of unnecessary blocking, that was. 4756:. I hope this helps illustrate my point. Cheers matey. 4002: 3624: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3538: 3534: 3526: 3518: 3506: 3364: 3205: 3198: 2940: 2852: 2665: 2577: 1600: 841: 835: 829: 699:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_adminship/Sabine's_Sunbird

623: 366: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 317: 63: 3778:...and per rspeer (edit count elitism?) and DarkFalls. 992:

evidence that adminship is, in fact, A Very Big Deal.

667:

on users when they, or other parties, are not present.

446:: I tend to notice a backlog here. My apprehension of 4487:(the ANI archive template give me the idea it was in 4656:

rspeer, Irpen and Friday have already said it best.

2941:

six co-nominations (with Rudget's) and five supports

2460:: Solid vandal fighter. Support without hesitation. 436:

practice and preparation for properly understanding

2363:- I see continuous improvement from a good editor. 1944:suggest he take JayHenry's advice on board (as in, 149:Active at our key areas (in terms of adminship) of 4112:"I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized..." 4108:"community has been given a chance to comment..." 3641:What does that have to do with use of the tools? 78:thank you to my Co-nominators, and especially to 4448:I can't recall wishing to antagonize anybody at 3834:excessively bureaucratic admin to its ranks. -- 1045:- per my nom and like pedro said: Net positive. 935:It was last night and i believe it was four :-) 2031:Your not an admin already? I thought you were. 510:. I was also primarily responsible for getting 497:Ok, well, I mentioned these in my previous two 407:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 4292:— Three RFAs in six months? Absolutely not. 2497:per appropriate use of speedy deletion tags. 8: 4754:here I changed from a Support based on diffs 2302:sure he will make a great admin regardless. 624:invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions 240:with being tactful and doing what is needed. 2154:- per all the reasons in oppose section. 501:. I was quite instrumental in helping the 2770:Oh and that link wasn't biting a newbie. 2131:first supporters signature reassures me-- 4064:oppose, but to do so by implying, nay - 865:Please keep discussion constructive and 883:Erm this isn't transcluded yet, is it? 764: 4517:and the answer to six looks scripted. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 3546:(Project Chanology). The sources for 432:: I think this admin-related area is 7: 4626:Per Giano. Sorry, nothing personal. 1228:- No complaints about this user. — 186:I would urge commentators to review 4913:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 4867:Neutral likely to switch to support 4673:per Rspeer, Irpen, Darkfalls, etc. 3199:thought I was talking about Greeks. 1059:- You should be a good admin :) -- 762: 4740:you to the following as examples: 24: 1801:Good improvement since last RfA. 782:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 4 777:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3 772:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 2 674:Optional Question from Balloonman 4059:With all due respect, Ghirla is 3539:the speedy deletion tagging here 1599:it wouldn't be a COI because of 4483:Yes sorry, my mistake, I meant 3901:IPs are !not allowed to !vote. 3531:Knowledge (XXG):Patent nonsense 1357:you weren't an admin already?-- 767:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 1073:Support, and delightfully so. 871:Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 753:. For the edit count, see the 212:Edit summary usage is spot on. 1: 3285:User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA 174:User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching#UAA 82:for his wonderful mentorship. 2431:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1294:(one step up from Herculean) 2664:The RFA was transcluded at 749:'s edit summary usage with 529:new contributor's help page 396:Questions for the candidate 4929: 4880:15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4862:09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4850:09:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4836:03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4803:10:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4783:21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4731:20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4701:23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4685:23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4666:23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4649:22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4635:22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4622:21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4602:21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4571:20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4540:20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4505:00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 4479:19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4442:19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4429:19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4418:19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4393:21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4389:(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 4378:18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4367:17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4363:(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 4350:17:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4336:16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4321:15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4307:15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4285:14:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4266:14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4243:17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4229:14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4216:13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4195:21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4167:17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4136:16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4102:16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4086:16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4055:16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4038:16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4017:15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3997:14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3976:13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3950:13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3938:13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3917:11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3897:11:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3880:10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3865:10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3845:10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3829:09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3810:07:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3793:07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3769:07:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3748:10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3733:07:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3708:05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3683:18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3672:06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3657:06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3648:05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3637:05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3609:21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3591:11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3582:07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3560:05:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3498:04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3480:04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3441:05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3389:04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3355:04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3323:04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3294:04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3279:03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3242:02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3229:03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3184:03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3170:02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3129:01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3117:talk page . All the best, 3112:01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3040:01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3019:20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 3017:20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2969:18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2954:16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2934:01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2916:23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2885:23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2871:21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2847:20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2821:20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2809:20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2786:19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2766:19:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2745:19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2724:19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2701:19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2682:19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2660:19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2628:19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2589:19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2572:19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2549:19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2525:00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 2507:23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2490:18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2472:17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2453:17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2436:17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2420:17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2401:17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2373:17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2356:16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2339:15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2312:14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2293:13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2277:13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2259:13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2242:11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2218:10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2203:09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2189:05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2167:04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2147:04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2124:04:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2101:03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2065:01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2044:01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2024:01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2007:01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1988:11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1966:01:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1932:00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1911:00:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1888:00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1872:00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1856:00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1811:00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1792:17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1771:23:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1748:23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1720:23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1704:23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1663:23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1644:22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1615:22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1578:22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1555:22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1535:21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1517:21:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1494:21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1471:21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1450:21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1423:21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1394:21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1378:No reason not to support. 1371:21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1350:20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1334:20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1308:20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1286:20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1260:20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1246:20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1221:20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1199:19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1178:19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1164:19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1155:19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1136:19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1106:19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1080:18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1069:16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1052:22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 1038:22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 1007:23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 980:19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 954:19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 929:01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 915:19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 727:04:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 701:as examples. I have taken 380:17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 304:22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 273:22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 181:Development since last RFA 71:00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 1409:. Definite net positive. 604:? Yes, I do. I regularly 188:User:Pedro/Admin_Coaching 4890:Please do not modify it. 3257:at 03:14, April 21, 2008 3053:articles. But, also see 2892:the benefit of the doubt 1831:a featured article, and 53:(67/38/5); Ended 00:17, 39:Please do not modify it. 3800:per Irpen and TwoOars. 3788:Make articles, not love 3577:Make articles, not love 3149:that incautious admin. 2346:- What more can I say? 1844:Milk’s Favorite Cookie 901:) 00:03 20th April 2008 4404:Misread my posting in 4206:Per Rspeer and Dark.-- 1527:Pharaoh of the Wizards 215:Un-offensive user page 3981:ridiculous comments. 2794:of biting newbies. -- 535:have been fulfilling. 327:various projectspaces 244:All, as ever I would 31:request for adminship 4092:Deacon of Pndapetzim 4045:Deacon of Pndapetzim 4007:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3145:RfA passes, he will 3119:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3030:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1651:No problems here. -- 1587:they defeated Sparta 791:Links for Wisdom89: 168:Not only active but 3515:Trinidad and Tobago 3075:Snakes & Arrows 1973:dihydrogen monoxide 1951:dihydrogen monoxide 1879:very helpful user. 761:RfAs for this user: 4281: 3459:Poor understanding 2950: 2270:The public face of 2263:About damned time 2176:Fully Support now. 1886: 1718: 1461:weburiedoursecrets 1139:Changed to neutral 873:before commenting. 218:Sensible Signature 195:Housekeeping Items 124:Well just look at 40: 4778: 4773: 4632: 4566: 4561: 4474: 4469: 4391: 4365: 4275: 4134: 4099: 4084: 4052: 4014: 3974: 3731: 3566:Anonymous (group) 3436: 3431: 3365:Superduperjackass 3350: 3345: 3259: 3126: 3107: 3102: 3037: 3015: 2944: 2877:George The Dragon 2869: 2792:complete opposite 2674:George The Dragon 2670:similar behaviour 2655: 2650: 2623: 2618: 2581:George The Dragon 2541:George The Dragon 2470: 2397: 2145: 1986: 1964: 1928: 1924: 1880: 1790: 1769: 1712: 1641: 1604: 1553: 1501:yep, of course. — 1448: 1251:Herculean Support 1140: 1036: 907:George The Dragon 902: 889:comment added by 598:gaming the system 359:Kindness Campaign 278:Co-nomination by 271: 38: 4920: 4892: 4859: 4847: 4834: 4833: 4820: 4792: 4777: 4771: 4767: 4761: 4682: 4677: 4633: 4631: 4600: 4598: 4592: 4586: 4565: 4559: 4555: 4549: 4536: 4535: 4532: 4529: 4526: 4523: 4473: 4467: 4463: 4457: 4426: 4387: 4375: 4361: 4318: 4303: 4300: 4279: 4235:Malleus Fatuorum 4164: 4154:<outdent: --> 4133: 4131: 4120: 4095: 4083: 4081: 4070: 4048: 4027: 4010: 3986: 3973: 3971: 3960: 3906: 3854: 3843: 3841: 3784: 3746: 3744: 3730: 3728: 3717: 3680: 3645: 3604: 3599: 3573: 3535:The tagging here 3477: 3470: 3435: 3429: 3425: 3419: 3386: 3383: 3376: 3373: 3349: 3343: 3339: 3333: 3320: 3317: 3310: 3307: 3291: 3248: 3226: 3223: 3216: 3213: 3167: 3164: 3157: 3154: 3122: 3106: 3100: 3096: 3090: 3033: 3014: 3012: 3001: 2966: 2948: 2929: 2924: 2914: 2913: 2900: 2868: 2866: 2855: 2845: 2844: 2831: 2818: 2805: 2798: 2775: 2755: 2743: 2740: 2738: 2654: 2648: 2644: 2638: 2622: 2616: 2612: 2606: 2488: 2486: 2464: 2434: 2432: 2398: 2395: 2390: 2384: 2334: 2329: 2324: 2290: 2285: 2240: 2144: 2142: 2132: 2098: 2091: 2083: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2016:SynergeticMaggot 1976: 1954: 1929: 1926: 1922: 1908: 1903: 1898: 1884: 1868: 1848: 1846: 1789: 1787: 1777: 1768: 1766: 1756: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1716: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1661: 1656: 1642: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1608: 1594: 1569: 1547: 1491: 1485: 1467: 1462: 1447: 1445: 1438: 1431: 1420: 1392: 1383: 1366: 1361: 1344:Anthony.bradbury 1328: 1320: 1306: 1257: 1244: 1243: 1217: 1210: 1197: 1194: 1192: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1120: 1077: 1063: 1049: 1035: 1033: 1022: 1004: 998: 978: 977: 964: 884: 857: 816: 740:General comments 724: 718: 691:balance criteria 626:on the editors? 531:and the Science 382: 377: 301: 282: 270: 268: 257: 4928: 4927: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4895:this nomination 4888: 4858:Dan Beale-Cocks 4857: 4845: 4819:« Gonzo fan2007 4818: 4816: 4815: 4790: 4781: 4772: 4769: 4759: 4709: 4680: 4675: 4630: 4628:Nousernamesleft 4596: 4590: 4584: 4582: 4569: 4560: 4557: 4547: 4533: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4521: 4520: 4477: 4468: 4465: 4455: 4424: 4373: 4316: 4301: 4298: 4277: 4162: 4129: 4121: 4079: 4071: 4025: 3984: 3969: 3961: 3904: 3852: 3837: 3835: 3802:X Marx The Spot 3791: 3780: 3779: 3759:, I think not. 3740: 3738: 3726: 3718: 3678: 3643: 3602: 3597: 3580: 3569: 3525:of notability? 3473: 3466: 3439: 3430: 3427: 3417: 3384: 3381: 3374: 3371: 3353: 3344: 3341: 3331: 3318: 3315: 3308: 3305: 3289: 3253: 3224: 3221: 3214: 3211: 3194:User:Hacker.gul 3165: 3162: 3155: 3152: 3110: 3101: 3098: 3088: 3085:to name a few. 3063:Phospholipase C 3010: 3002: 2996:Six nominations 2964: 2946: 2927: 2922: 2899:« Gonzo fan2007 2898: 2896: 2895: 2864: 2856: 2830:« Gonzo fan2007 2829: 2827: 2826: 2816: 2807: 2803: 2796: 2773: 2753: 2736: 2734: 2731: 2658: 2649: 2646: 2636: 2626: 2617: 2614: 2604: 2533: 2482: 2480: 2430: 2428: 2394: 2388: 2382: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2288: 2283: 2275: 2226: 2165: 2140: 2133: 2094: 2087: 2079: 2037: 2035: 2033: 2014:with pleasure. 1982: 1960: 1920: 1906: 1901: 1896: 1882: 1866: 1842: 1840: 1785: 1778: 1764: 1757: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1714: 1701: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1654: 1652: 1640: 1626: 1623: 1606: 1565: 1489: 1481: 1465: 1460: 1441: 1434: 1432: 1416: 1381: 1379: 1364: 1359: 1326: 1318: 1300: 1255: 1233: 1229: 1219: 1215: 1208: 1190: 1188: 1185: 1119:« Gonzo fan2007 1118: 1116: 1115: 1075: 1061: 1047: 1031: 1023: 1015: 1002: 994: 963:« Gonzo fan2007 962: 960: 959: 880: 809: 792: 788: 786: 742: 722: 714: 622:Do you plan to 517:Phospholipase C 398: 375: 318:two-year period 308: 299: 280: 266: 258: 200:Clean block log 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4926: 4924: 4916: 4915: 4905: 4904: 4900: 4899: 4883: 4882: 4864: 4852: 4838: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4768: 4764: 4708: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4687: 4668: 4651: 4637: 4624: 4604: 4585:Lawrence Cohen 4575: 4574: 4573: 4556: 4552: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4464: 4460: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4352: 4338: 4323: 4309: 4287: 4268: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4233:Hear, hear! -- 4218: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 3940: 3930:Hiberniantears 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3889:62.113.158.186 3867: 3847: 3831: 3812: 3795: 3785: 3777: 3771: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3626:, how ironic. 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3574: 3500: 3482: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3426: 3422: 3340: 3336: 3261: 3251: 3244: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3201: 3188:Well, there's 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3097: 3093: 3022: 3021: 3020: 2993:of levity.... 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2823: 2811: 2801: 2768: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2645: 2641: 2630: 2613: 2609: 2578:biting newbies 2574: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2509: 2492: 2474: 2455: 2438: 2422: 2403: 2375: 2358: 2344:Strong Support 2341: 2314: 2296: 2279: 2268: 2261: 2244: 2220: 2205: 2191: 2169: 2161: 2149: 2126: 2103: 2067: 2046: 2026: 2009: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1980: 1958: 1934: 1913: 1890: 1874: 1858: 1813: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1753:Strong support 1750: 1725:Strong support 1722: 1706: 1699: 1665: 1646: 1636: 1617: 1580: 1557: 1540:Strong Support 1537: 1522:Strong Support 1519: 1496: 1476:Strong support 1473: 1455:Strong support 1452: 1425: 1396: 1373: 1355:Strong Support 1352: 1336: 1313:Strong Support 1310: 1288: 1265:Strong support 1262: 1248: 1226:Strong Support 1223: 1213: 1204:Strong Support 1201: 1180: 1166: 1157: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1082: 1071: 1054: 1040: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1009: 982: 956: 933: 932: 931: 903: 879: 876: 862: 861: 860: 858: 787: 785: 784: 779: 774: 769: 763: 760: 759: 758: 751:mathbot's tool 741: 738: 736: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 671: 670: 669: 668: 641: 640: 639: 638: 616: 615: 614: 613: 568: 564:Question from 561: 560: 559: 558: 539: 538: 537: 536: 533:reference desk 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 474: 468: 458: 452: 441: 422: 421: 420: 419: 397: 394: 392: 367:random example 242: 241: 223: 222: 221:E-mail enabled 219: 216: 213: 210: 209:A civil manner 207: 201: 192: 191: 178: 177: 166: 141: 140: 137: 85: 84: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4925: 4914: 4911: 4910: 4908: 4898: 4896: 4891: 4885: 4884: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4868: 4865: 4863: 4860: 4853: 4851: 4848: 4843: 4839: 4837: 4832: 4830: 4826: 4821: 4813: 4810: 4804: 4800: 4799: 4794: 4793: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4779: 4774: 4763: 4762: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4738: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4715: 4711: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4688: 4686: 4683: 4678: 4672: 4669: 4667: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4652: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4636: 4629: 4625: 4623: 4619: 4616: 4612: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4599: 4593: 4587: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4567: 4562: 4551: 4550: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4538: 4537: 4516: 4512: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4475: 4470: 4459: 4458: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4440: 4437: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4427: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4400: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4376: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4353: 4351: 4348: 4347: 4342: 4339: 4337: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4324: 4322: 4319: 4313: 4310: 4308: 4304: 4295: 4291: 4288: 4286: 4283: 4280: 4272: 4269: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4219: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4202: 4196: 4193: 4192: 4187: 4186: 4181: 4180: 4175: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4165: 4159: 4153: 4137: 4132: 4126: 4125: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4098: 4093: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4082: 4076: 4075: 4067: 4062: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4051: 4046: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4035: 4034: 4029: 4028: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3994: 3993: 3988: 3987: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3972: 3966: 3965: 3958: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3948: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3924: 3918: 3914: 3913: 3908: 3907: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3868: 3866: 3862: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3848: 3846: 3842: 3840: 3832: 3830: 3827: 3826: 3822: 3821: 3816: 3813: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3796: 3794: 3789: 3783: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3755: 3749: 3745: 3743: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3729: 3723: 3722: 3714: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3706: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3694: 3684: 3681: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3670: 3669: 3666: 3665: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3646: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3635: 3634: 3631: 3630: 3625: 3621: 3620:Strong Oppose 3618: 3610: 3607: 3605: 3600: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3578: 3572: 3567: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3501: 3499: 3496: 3491: 3486: 3483: 3481: 3478: 3476: 3471: 3469: 3463: 3460: 3457: 3454: 3442: 3437: 3432: 3421: 3420: 3413: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3387: 3378: 3377: 3366: 3362: 3361:User:Maxbitch 3358: 3357: 3356: 3351: 3346: 3335: 3334: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3321: 3312: 3311: 3301: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3267: 3262: 3260: 3258: 3255: 3245: 3243: 3240: 3236: 3230: 3227: 3218: 3217: 3207: 3202: 3200: 3195: 3191: 3190:this exchange 3187: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3168: 3159: 3158: 3148: 3143: 3139: 3136: 3130: 3125: 3120: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3108: 3103: 3092: 3091: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3071:Dream Theater 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3055:Conservapedia 3052: 3048: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3036: 3031: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3013: 3007: 3006: 2999: 2998:- outrageous! 2997: 2992: 2988: 2970: 2967: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2949: 2942: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2932: 2930: 2925: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2912: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2867: 2861: 2860: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2824: 2822: 2819: 2812: 2810: 2806: 2799: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2777: 2776: 2769: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2757: 2756: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2716: 2715: 2710: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2689: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2656: 2651: 2640: 2639: 2631: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2608: 2607: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2579: 2575: 2573: 2570: 2569: 2564: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2484:Sephiroth BCR 2478: 2475: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2456: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2439: 2437: 2433: 2426: 2423: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2407: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2391: 2385: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2330: 2325: 2318: 2315: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2300: 2297: 2295: 2294: 2291: 2286: 2280: 2278: 2274: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2237: 2233: 2230: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2177: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2153: 2150: 2148: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2130: 2127: 2125: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2102: 2099: 2097: 2092: 2090: 2084: 2082: 2075: 2071: 2068: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2042: 2030: 2027: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2010: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999:Roadrunnerz45 1996: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1975: 1974: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1953: 1952: 1947: 1943: 1942:very strongly 1939: 1935: 1933: 1930: 1917: 1914: 1912: 1909: 1904: 1899: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1885: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1847: 1845: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1817: 1814: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1767: 1762: 1761: 1754: 1751: 1749: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1726: 1723: 1721: 1717: 1710: 1707: 1705: 1702: 1697: 1695: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1672: 1670: 1666: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1621: 1618: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1609: 1602: 1598: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1581: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1568: 1567:Rodhullandemu 1561: 1558: 1556: 1551: 1546: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1492: 1486: 1484: 1477: 1474: 1472: 1469: 1468: 1463: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1446: 1444: 1439: 1437: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1388: 1384: 1377: 1374: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1362: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1348: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1321: 1314: 1311: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303:CycloneNimrod 1298: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1266: 1263: 1261: 1258: 1252: 1249: 1247: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1218: 1211: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1165: 1162: 1159:Rush fan eh? 1158: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1137: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1078: 1072: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1058: 1055: 1053: 1050: 1044: 1041: 1039: 1034: 1028: 1027: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 999: 997: 991: 987: 983: 981: 976: 974: 970: 965: 957: 955: 952: 951: 946: 945: 940: 939: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 917: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 882: 881: 877: 875: 874: 872: 868: 859: 855: 852: 849: 846: 843: 840: 837: 834: 831: 828: 825: 822: 819: 815: 812: 808: 805: 802: 799: 795: 790: 789: 783: 780: 778: 775: 773: 770: 768: 765: 756: 752: 748: 744: 743: 739: 737: 728: 725: 719: 717: 711: 710: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 685: 684: 681: 678: 677: 676: 675: 666: 662: 658: 657:wheel warring 653: 650: 649: 646: 643: 642: 636: 631: 628: 627: 625: 621: 618: 617: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 576: 575: 572: 569: 567: 563: 562: 555: 550: 547: 546: 544: 541: 540: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 513: 509: 504: 500: 496: 493: 492: 490: 487: 486: 478: 475: 472: 469: 466: 462: 459: 456: 453: 449: 445: 442: 439: 435: 431: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 417: 412: 409: 408: 406: 403: 402: 401: 395: 393: 390: 388: 383: 381: 378: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 319: 315: 311: 310:Co-nomination 306: 305: 302: 296: 292: 286: 285: 283: 275: 274: 269: 263: 262: 255: 254: 249: 248: 239: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 199: 198: 197: 196: 189: 185: 184: 183: 182: 175: 171: 167: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 147: 146: 145: 138: 135: 131: 130:Conservapedia 127: 123: 122: 121: 120: 116: 114: 110: 105: 104: 99: 96: 93: 89: 83: 81: 75: 74: 73: 72: 69: 65: 61: 59: 56: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4889: 4886: 4866: 4822: 4811: 4796: 4788: 4758: 4736: 4718: 4714:WP:EDITCOUNT 4689: 4670: 4653: 4609:- Per Kurt. 4606: 4577: 4546: 4519: 4514: 4454: 4401: 4385:RyanGerbil10 4359:RyanGerbil10 4354: 4345: 4340: 4325: 4311: 4297: 4289: 4270: 4253: 4249: 4203: 4189: 4183: 4177: 4173: 4157: 4123: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4073: 4065: 4060: 4031: 4023: 3990: 3982: 3963: 3956: 3942: 3925: 3910: 3902: 3884: 3858: 3850: 3838: 3824: 3819: 3814: 3797: 3773: 3756: 3741: 3720: 3712: 3702: 3695: 3668: 3663: 3633: 3628: 3619: 3522: 3511:calling code 3502: 3489: 3484: 3474: 3467: 3462:of adminship 3455: 3416: 3370: 3330: 3304: 3299: 3265: 3256: 3249: 3246:Per rspeer. 3210: 3151: 3146: 3141: 3137: 3087: 3083:Alex Lifeson 3025:Moral Oppose 3024: 3004: 2994: 2990: 2902: 2858: 2833: 2791: 2779: 2771: 2759: 2751: 2733: 2718: 2712: 2706: 2672:in the past 2635: 2603: 2594: 2566: 2560: 2554: 2536: 2511: 2494: 2483: 2476: 2457: 2441:Weak support 2440: 2424: 2415: 2410: 2405: 2377: 2360: 2343: 2320: 2319: 2316: 2304:Lazulilasher 2298: 2281: 2264: 2246: 2227: 2222: 2207: 2175: 2172:WEAK Support 2171: 2155: 2151: 2135: 2128: 2116: 2105: 2095: 2088: 2080: 2069: 2048: 2028: 2011: 1994: 1971: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1915: 1892: 1876: 1864: 1860: 1851: 1850: 1843: 1837:good article 1815: 1798: 1780: 1759: 1752: 1732:bibliomaniac 1729: 1728: 1724: 1708: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669:Alexander-an 1667: 1648: 1625: 1619: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1539: 1521: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1498: 1482: 1475: 1458: 1454: 1442: 1435: 1427: 1417: 1411: 1406: 1398: 1375: 1354: 1343: 1338: 1324: 1323: 1312: 1301: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1264: 1250: 1225: 1203: 1187: 1182: 1122: 1111: 1110: 1100: 1094: 1088: 1084: 1065: 1056: 1042: 1025: 1018: 995: 989: 966: 948: 942: 936: 864: 863: 850: 844: 838: 832: 826: 820: 813: 806: 800: 735: 715: 690: 686: 679: 673: 672: 660: 651: 644: 634: 629: 619: 577: 570: 548: 542: 494: 488: 433: 410: 404: 399: 391: 386: 384: 370: 363:Adopt-a-user 309: 307: 287: 277: 276: 260: 253:Net Positive 251: 246: 245: 243: 232: 225: 224: 194: 193: 180: 179: 169: 144:Project Work 143: 142: 119:Article Work 118: 117: 108: 101: 94: 86: 76: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 4719:prima facie 4611:User:Krator 4208:Cube lurker 4172:and find a 3776:per Giano. 3664:OhanaUnited 3629:OhanaUnited 3283:Please see 3239:John Reaves 2499:KleenupKrew 2229:Malinaccier 1940:although I 1863:Finally!!! 1829:Rush (band) 1715:Fattyjwoods 1525:commitment. 1466:inthegarden 1405:would say, 1043:Nom support 990:prima facie 891:Malinaccier 885:—Preceding 291:Rush (band) 204:WP:HELPDESK 126:Rush (band) 4872:Balloonman 4497:SunCreator 4410:SunCreator 4346:Black Kite 4294:Kurt Weber 4258:Appletrees 3870:evidence. 3517:? Tagging 3176:Balloonman 3051:Neil Peart 2599:spoonerism 2445:PhilKnight 2396:Disclaimer 2251:FrankTobia 2225:. Sure. 2055:for sure. 1833:Neil Peart 1510:discussion 1407:oh, indeed 1316:Support!-- 878:Discussion 703:User:Pedro 521:WP:TWINKLE 512:Neil Peart 387:graciously 335:expressing 331:explaining 295:Neil Peart 233:enormously 134:Neil Peart 80:User:Pedro 3782:Nishkid64 3571:Nishkid64 3548:this page 3544:Anonymous 3523:assertion 3519:this page 3079:Geddy Lee 2817:Trusilver 2797:Sharkface 2633:myself... 2289:cierekim 2212:Athaenara 2157:Jauerback 1597:make sure 1550:Talk 2 22 1256:Trusilver 1209:Sharkface 1147:Darkspots 1112:Of course 1062:Wisconsus 921:Darkspots 836:block log 755:talk page 635:precisely 594:WP:HARASS 525:help desk 434:excellent 323:mainspace 165:etc. etc. 111:Wisdom's 68:Acalamari 64:Withdrawn 4907:Category 4829:contribs 4760:Wisdom89 4723:JayHenry 4676:mathwhiz 4548:Wisdom89 4456:Wisdom89 4425:Tiptoety 4374:Tiptoety 4330:Garion96 4317:Philippe 4278:Cenarium 4003:see here 3679:Tiptoety 3644:Tiptoety 3418:Wisdom89 3332:Wisdom89 3290:Tiptoety 3089:Wisdom89 3067:Knock-in 2947:Cenarium 2909:contribs 2840:contribs 2637:Wisdom89 2605:Wisdom89 2595:not bite 2576:And per 2208:Support. 2195:Valtoras 2136:Pewwer42 2120:contribs 2110:Casliber 1923:HEFFIELD 1781:SorryGuy 1760:SorryGuy 1711:why not 1678:de facto 1382:Soxred93 1231:scetoaux 1183:Support. 1129:contribs 1048:Tiptoety 973:contribs 899:contribs 887:unsigned 804:contribs 794:Wisdom89 747:Wisdom89 661:improper 590:WP:TROLL 582:WP:CIVIL 438:WP:BLOCK 371:Wisdom89 300:Tiptoety 281:Tiptoety 170:accurate 113:last RFA 103:Wisdom89 98:contribs 88:Wisdom89 55:22 April 47:Wisdom89 4842:the wub 4812:Neutral 4791:Majorly 4737:extreme 4707:Neutral 4355:Oppose. 4179:TheProf 4066:stating 4026:Majorly 3985:Majorly 3905:Majorly 3853:Majorly 3713:Comment 3328:Cheers. 3271:Rjd0060 2774:Majorly 2754:Majorly 2708:TheProf 2556:TheProf 2512:Support 2495:Support 2477:Support 2462:Toddst1 2458:Support 2425:Support 2406:Support 2365:Bearian 2361:Support 2317:Support 2299:Support 2265:support 2247:Support 2223:Support 2181:ThuranX 2152:Support 2129:support 2106:Support 2070:Support 2057:Useight 2049:Support 2029:Support 2012:Support 1995:Support 1916:Support 1893:Support 1883:Spencer 1877:Support 1867:MBisanz 1861:Support 1816:Support 1803:Epbr123 1799:Support 1709:Support 1682:de jure 1680:into a 1671:Support 1659:iva1979 1649:Support 1620:Support 1591:Support 1560:Support 1545:Anger22 1499:Support 1428:Support 1399:Support 1376:Support 1339:Support 1297:support 1291:Spartan 1270:Cameron 1161:Spartaz 1090:TheProf 1085:Support 1057:Support 1019:Support 1013:Support 938:TheProf 811:deleted 499:WP:RFAs 465:WP:RFPP 463:: Like 455:WP:RFPP 238:WP:BOLD 226:Summary 159:WP:RFPP 109:opposed 4690:Oppose 4671:Oppose 4658:~ Eóin 4654:Oppose 4607:Oppose 4578:Oppose 4515:Friday 4485:WP:ANI 4439:(talk) 4436:Friday 4402:Oppose 4341:Oppose 4333:(talk) 4326:Oppose 4312:Oppose 4302:Colts! 4290:Oppose 4271:Oppose 4250:Oppose 4226:(talk) 4223:Friday 4204:Oppose 4163:Rudget 3947:Ghirla 3943:Oppose 3926:Oppose 3885:Oppose 3872:Daniel 3839:Naerii 3815:Oppose 3798:Oppose 3774:Oppose 3742:Naerii 3696:Oppose 3542:group, 3503:Oppose 3485:Oppose 3456:Oppose 3142:wisdom 3138:Oppose 2965:Rudget 2693:Metros 2537:Oppose 2531:Oppose 2517:Liempt 2383:Keeper 2348:D.M.N. 2232:Public 2074:WP:UAA 2053:WP:100 1825:WP:AIV 1821:WP:UAA 1607:Thingg 1583:Theban 1503:αἰτίας 1436:Fusion 1076:Rudget 986:WP:NBD 707:WP:AIV 665:WP:RFC 606:patrol 602:WP:3RR 586:WP:NPA 554:WP:AGF 527:, the 508:WP:OWN 477:WP:AFD 471:WP:CSD 461:WP:ANI 444:WP:UAA 430:WP:AIV 416:WP:ANI 376:Rudget 314:Rudget 163:WP:UAA 155:WP:XFD 151:WP:AIV 4870:yet.) 4489:WP:AN 4450:WP:AN 4406:WP:AN 4130:Chat 4124:Pedro 4116:great 4080:Chat 4074:Pedro 3970:Chat 3964:Pedro 3761:Giano 3727:Chat 3721:Pedro 3704:Cobra 3700:Glass 3623:count 3495:Irpen 3382:ɹəəds 3375:speer 3316:ɹəəds 3309:speer 3222:ɹəəds 3215:speer 3163:ɹəəds 3156:speer 3011:Chat 3005:Pedro 2865:Chat 2859:Pedro 2666:20.19 2553:Huh? 2411:Kubek 2333:Shark 2163:dude. 2141:Talk 2081:jonny 2038:rossa 2036:Testa 2034:Vivio 1786:Talk 1765:Talk 1631:aveno 1418:Tucky 1319:RyRy5 1032:Chat 1026:Pedro 867:civil 818:count 610:WP:AE 566:Irpen 448:WP:UP 267:Chat 261:Pedro 247:never 60:(UTC) 33:that 16:< 4876:talk 4846:"?!" 4825:talk 4798:talk 4752:and 4727:talk 4662:talk 4645:talk 4641:Nick 4513:Per 4501:talk 4493:here 4414:talk 4262:talk 4239:talk 4212:talk 4174:real 4158:ever 4097:Talk 4050:Talk 4033:talk 4012:Talk 3992:talk 3934:talk 3912:talk 3893:talk 3876:talk 3860:talk 3820:Neıl 3806:talk 3765:talk 3654:Dark 3603:Dude 3598:Koji 3588:Dark 3557:Dark 3552:This 3527:This 3513:for 3507:this 3475:Oars 3275:talk 3250:east 3180:talk 3124:Talk 3081:and 3059:Burn 3049:and 3047:Rush 3035:Talk 2960:here 2928:Dude 2923:Koji 2905:talk 2881:talk 2836:talk 2781:talk 2761:talk 2697:talk 2678:talk 2585:talk 2545:talk 2521:talk 2503:talk 2467:talk 2449:talk 2369:talk 2352:talk 2323:Sexy 2308:talk 2284:Dloh 2255:talk 2236:talk 2199:talk 2185:talk 2114:talk 2061:talk 2020:talk 2003:talk 1946:some 1938:duh! 1936:Per 1927:TEEL 1897:Jmlk 1807:talk 1700:adds 1627:κaτa 1601:this 1574:Talk 1531:talk 1403:Omar 1387:talk 1365:Dude 1360:Koji 1327:talk 1174:talk 1151:talk 1125:talk 969:talk 925:talk 911:talk 895:talk 848:rfar 830:logs 798:talk 745:See 697:and 592:and 503:Rush 361:and 333:and 325:and 293:and 132:and 92:talk 58:2008 4698:Joe 4696:. 4061:not 3957:any 3468:Two 3300:say 3266:you 3254:718 3000::) 2991:bit 2737:ODU 2392:| 2386:| 2378:Yup 2328:Sea 1693:noy 1690:ela 1687:J.d 1487:| 1483:Tan 1443:Mix 1412:Van 1401:as 1390:bot 1191:ODU 1170:EJF 1000:| 996:Tan 854:spi 824:AfD 720:| 716:Tan 312:by 4909:: 4878:) 4827:♦ 4801:) 4775:/ 4748:, 4744:, 4729:) 4681:29 4664:) 4647:) 4620:) 4588:§ 4563:/ 4531:nd 4525:ir 4503:) 4471:/ 4416:) 4305:) 4299:Go 4264:) 4254:is 4241:) 4214:) 4188:/ 4182:- 4127:: 4100:) 4077:: 4053:) 4036:) 4015:) 3995:) 3967:: 3936:) 3915:) 3895:) 3878:) 3863:) 3808:) 3767:) 3757:No 3724:: 3568:. 3533:. 3433:/ 3414:. 3411:, 3408:, 3405:, 3402:, 3399:, 3396:, 3385:ɹ 3379:/ 3347:/ 3319:ɹ 3313:/ 3277:) 3225:ɹ 3219:/ 3182:) 3166:ɹ 3160:/ 3147:be 3127:) 3104:/ 3077:, 3073:, 3069:, 3065:, 3061:, 3057:, 3038:) 3008:: 2907:♦ 2883:) 2862:: 2838:♦ 2784:) 2764:) 2717:/ 2711:- 2699:) 2680:) 2652:/ 2620:/ 2601:. 2587:) 2565:/ 2559:- 2547:) 2523:) 2505:) 2451:) 2416:15 2408:. 2389:76 2371:) 2354:) 2310:) 2273:GB 2267:. 2257:) 2215:✉ 2210:— 2201:) 2187:) 2122:) 2077:-- 2063:) 2022:) 2005:) 1835:a 1809:) 1727:. 1589:) 1576:) 1533:) 1490:39 1385:| 1332:) 1284:) 1176:) 1153:) 1127:♦ 1099:/ 1093:- 1029:: 1003:39 971:♦ 947:/ 941:- 927:) 913:) 897:• 842:lu 723:39 680:7. 652:A: 645:6. 630:A: 620:5. 588:, 584:, 578:A: 571:4. 549:A: 543:3. 495:A: 489:2. 411:A: 405:1. 385:I 373:. 353:, 345:, 341:, 264:: 161:, 157:, 153:, 128:, 66:. 62:- 37:. 4874:( 4831:) 4823:( 4795:( 4780:) 4770:T 4765:( 4725:( 4660:( 4643:( 4618:c 4615:t 4613:( 4597:e 4594:/ 4591:t 4568:) 4558:T 4553:( 4534:a 4528:a 4522:m 4499:( 4476:) 4466:T 4461:( 4412:( 4296:( 4260:( 4237:( 4210:( 4191:C 4185:T 4094:( 4047:( 4030:( 4009:( 3989:( 3932:( 3909:( 3891:( 3874:( 3857:( 3825:☎ 3804:( 3790:) 3786:( 3763:( 3579:) 3575:( 3555:— 3438:) 3428:T 3423:( 3372:r 3352:) 3342:T 3337:( 3306:r 3273:( 3252:. 3212:r 3178:( 3153:r 3121:( 3109:) 3099:T 3094:( 3032:( 2911:) 2903:( 2879:( 2842:) 2834:( 2804:C 2800:/ 2778:( 2758:( 2739:P 2735:W 2720:C 2714:T 2695:( 2676:( 2657:) 2647:T 2642:( 2625:) 2615:T 2610:( 2583:( 2568:C 2562:T 2543:( 2519:( 2501:( 2469:) 2465:( 2447:( 2367:( 2350:( 2306:( 2253:( 2238:) 2234:( 2197:( 2183:( 2160:/ 2117:· 2112:( 2096:t 2089:m 2085:- 2059:( 2018:( 2001:( 1985:) 1983:O 1981:2 1979:H 1977:( 1963:) 1961:O 1959:2 1957:H 1955:( 1925:S 1921:S 1907:7 1902:1 1805:( 1742:5 1737:1 1655:S 1638:C 1629:ʟ 1603:. 1585:( 1572:( 1552:) 1548:( 1529:( 1514:• 1506:• 1322:( 1282:c 1280:| 1278:p 1276:| 1274:t 1272:( 1242:) 1240:C 1238:| 1236:T 1234:( 1216:C 1212:/ 1193:P 1189:W 1172:( 1149:( 1131:) 1123:( 1102:C 1096:T 1066:| 975:) 967:( 950:C 944:T 923:( 909:( 893:( 856:) 851:· 845:· 839:· 833:· 827:· 821:· 814:· 807:· 801:· 796:( 757:. 687:A 552:( 355:5 351:4 347:3 343:2 339:1 284:: 190:. 136:. 95:· 90:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index