1959:- I've already done a less-articulate "support" above, but I would like to concur with Mais Oui's comments here. As someone who was also raised to be a straight talker, I agree that much of what is being called "civility issues" is a matter of cultural difference. Deacon does important work in areas that are sometimes prone to ethnic and political conflict (for instance Gaelic vs English, Scottish History, naming conventions and other designations that can have a lot of political history and baggage). The fact that he has not run away from these areas of WP, and has instead shown leadership in these difficult areas, means he has faced some opposition and pissed some people off. While those raised to be less direct in their style of communication may not always appreciate how he has handled some of these conflicts, I have to say that the ability to demonstrate leadership in stressful situations is a necessary quality for an admin. Deacon has shown that he has that qualification. -
185:
be, little more than ability to use a rather limited "mop and bucket" when and if required. That said, among new-comers, an admin is often perceived as having authority, and so I'd be keen to use that to prevent new-comers being alienated. Blocking is over-used and misused by some admins, and I'm not sure the extent to which they realise blocking can send users (who could be good) into the badlands, into the outskirts of ordered wikipedia life with nothing to lose. When this happens more work is created for regular users (including administrators), and now and then a potentially good content contributor is lost. It's of course about using one's judgment in the particular case, but in general ... to understate a little ... I'd be leaning towards "the last opinion" camp, certainly when it comes to users with a clear interest in creating content.
503:
happening in neutral terms and a "cool down" recommendation, on the article talk page and/or their user pages with a message about edit warring. The next step would be protecting the page, which if it's confined to one article is the same as a cool down block without the perceived slight. If that didn't help, I either leave a description of what's happening to other administrators or issue a polite but firm warning. There are enough admins these days to seek input about something like a block. If the situation was so extreme that even after that continued intervention was necessary, I'd consider a cool down block. Again, I'm not a fan of blocking for many reasons, including some I stated above.
205::Good question. Whenever I finish something, I'm often unsatisfied with the end product, esp. when I learn more about whatever topic it is later or after I've processed the material more thoroughly in my head. I do have 4 FAs, and I dunno, about half a dozen GAs (haven't been counting). My article creations have focused for the past wee while on creating articles on the bishops of medieval Scotland. I started doing this because, quite honestly, I knew no-one else would ever do it. I started off doing stubs and starts using only one or two sources for the main Scottish bishoprics, St Andrews and Glasgow. As I've progressed I've put more work in, becoming more substantial through
164:: I'm fundamentally a content contributor, and cannot ever foresee myself acting solely or even mostly as a "mandarin". What I enjoy about wikipedia is writing stuff and co-operating with other users interested in writing similar stuff. That's why I'm here, and what brings me here continually. Over my years on wikipedia I've had little spurts of recent changes patrolling (only yesterday indeed was my last), and for what it's worth I would do more of this if granted the "mop and bucket" ... though I'll say it's quite competitive these days. Much harder to beat the bots and other patrollers to the vandalism and the playful anonymous editing! As I thoroughly understand
3303:- during which I unfortunately allowed myself to get a little riled. The user repeatedly moved pages ignoring an existing naming convention. I moved them back, and they reverted the move. They then claimed that there have never been any consensus on the issue, despite evidence - and tried to remove evidence that there had been a consensus, ignored any attempts at compromise and insinuated collusion on IRC. When another presented a proposal which would have altered the existing guidelines to prefer the disambiguator Deacon insisted on, Deacon left on a wikibreak, and despite returning a week later, did not attempt to build a new consensus either way.
810:, where, just as love songs are more meaningful with a broken heart, it may seem a little more relevant to me given some of what this review has produced, esp. the 2nd section. Certainly, it cannot be overstated that in the unfortunate circumstances of the exercise of powers over peers, diplomacy is a bigger priority than in normal editing. This was something I stressed above, and have always thought to be important. I'd also add that an admin (or anyone) is more likely to succeed at diffusing conflict if both sides are approached with respect. So it's important to any kind of intervention.
3434:. I was working from memory. It may sound like an excuse, and I suppose it is, but Cool Down Blocks didn't get marked so significantly as proper-ish nouns until the middle of last year. I was responding to the question without reference to policy, which was my mistake, but as the answer didn't depart from policy very much (other than omitting reference to it, which was what the question in hindsight was clearly aiming for), I'm not sure it's really evidence for concluding that I favour them, which I assure everyone explicitly I do not. Regards,
1914:). Anyway, I will probably not be voting again in these daft popularity contests, because I don't have much time for Admins as a species, a few of whom are downright scoundrels in my opinion. Like Calgacus/Deacon I myself have the very Scottish cultural trait of saying exactly what I think. I don't know about other people, but we Scots tend to trust a straight-talker, and be very wary indeed of sweet-talkers, who can turn out to be the worst type of venemous serpent. Deacon is
702:, and (in the particular circumstances) suspect it'll go to the limit or beyond, then anytime after the 2nd revert may be good. You may start typing after the second and find by saving stage that the third has occurred already, and if you wait until the third it may be too late. If on the other hand you remind an experienced user of WP:3RR at the second revert, it may be taken as a little annoying and patronising. Thus circumstances are all important. You tend to find on
3188:. I made an edit in good faith but Deacon seems to imply I did not. He did not contact me for an explanation or my views, and again acts more as a "joker", mocking others' views rather than behaving like a mediator. In this capacity, I wouldn't feel comfortable with Deacon having administrator status. I do not think his mediation skills are developed enough and his manner, dare I say civility, with those with alternative perspectives leaves much to be desired.
1549:. The Deacon is very knowledgeable and adding the admin tools will make him able to contribute to Knowledge. I am slightly concerned that he'll be diverted into admin tasks when he might be more valuable as an article editor, but that's his choice. I have thought about the civility concerns, and looked at some recent interactions of his, and I think he is blunt and sometimes not particularly tactful. I'd urge him to err on the side of tact in the future.
1559:
come across as a device for side-tracking the dialogue. I've become aware at least that the relationship between my perception of my tone and the perception of it by others needs to converge in the latter direction. Some of the things that may look bad were honestly written in a melo and pleasant state of mind! In consolation, clumsiness is usually quite easy to fix once you're aware of it. I'll only try my best. Regards,
3244:, not to mention the way he harasses every user who disagrees with him in a debate by adding snide little comments under their contributions. I don't dispute that he is intelligent and knows a lot about his "specialist subjects". He is, unfortunately, also unbelievably arrogant and offensive. Were he to be given admin tools, he would undoubtedly use them to impose his own strong opinions on others.
418:: This may be a rather lame answer, but I don't think I'd want to rank policies by relevance to administrative function. All administrative functions have to be exercised in a way that don't damage the trust, respect and standing of the encyclopedia, its normal content contributors, and the Foundation. That aside, if I had to pick one specifically for admin functions, then it'd be
314:, though I think this is cultural and is as often seen as a virtue as a vice. Nowadays I may still now and then be slightly abrasive, but only in advancing wikipedia's interests. I can wear two hats easily enough. It's certainly not something I'd hang over the exercise of admin responsibilities, where good diplomacy and perceived respect is much more vital, as encounters with
229:. It may be rather odd and unfair that there's an inverse relationship between importance and coverage, but I plan to fix that after I've finished with the other bishoprics. I'm most proud of the fact that coverage of medieval Scotland in wikipedia is now approaching satisfactory standards, though I myself am just a part of that. I've created several hundred articles ...
613:
affairs. I can add to that a deletion thread some time ago about infoboxes where the heat carried me a little. That affair actually and my encounters with
Kafziel and Stemonitis made me adopt a more relaxed approach to responding on talk pages , and these days I tend to take a more relaxed approach and manner. It really does work I've found.
3080:? I am usually not this vocal at RfA's, but I think we have unreasonable expectations of prospective admins. This user has over 20,000 edits. One off-color (we ALL have written worse to those annoying trolls) comment and he is somehow not worthy of a mop (literally). Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox. :)--
3175:
Clearly a strong contributor to article space, and passionate about the project, but I've found this user overly combattive on talk pages, even rude, negative and dismissive on occation. Some of his remarks I've seen do little to move discussion along and seem to have the purpose of ridiculing others
351:
Well, firstly, let me say I don't think it's good for some admins to be more accountable than others. All admins should be open to recall, otherwise we'll have a sort of wikipedian aristocracy. I'd be more in favour of making de-sysoping easier than an individual opt-in opt-out system. An individual
2889:
Ah ... was unfamiliar with part of the policy (actually I now vaguely recall reading it from a while ago). I think my answer was roughly in line with that anyway. I didn't say explicitly, but essentially I did say I'd never do it... though because of my experience rather than the policy. Should have
2557:- I never oppose a candidate because of a few moments in the past when he/she has got to the end of the tether and lost their head slightly. We're all humans, we're not perfect and it happens to us all. Hopefully this user learns from mistakes, because the set of contribs we have here is brilliant.
2092:
take some of his edit summaries as sniping but I personally find that description a stretch. I know that I often communicate to other editors in edit summaries. Sometimes the limited space can result in rather too brief and terse phrasing, particularly when outlining a contrary position to previous
1558:
Your urging is well taken. I was aware that I could be a little abrasive from time to time, but seeing the disapproval in 3 votes below is a bit of a shock. It's very different seeing it there than hearing it a few times a year from people on the other side of a discussion, where it can potentially
1321:
Since there's some opposition, I bothered to profile this editor for 10 minutes. I see nothing wrong with him. His credentials are far in excess of what's needed to become an administrator. He changed his answer to the question about cool-down blocks, so I think he knows what the policy is. Let's
459:
This isn't very likely to be an issue for me as I rarely edit the biographies of living persons, plus I'd regard it as a little irresponsible to insist on content controversial enough to be objected to by a reasonable user. If it happened, I can safely generalize that I'd err on the side of caution
322:
have taught me. I don't like to edit war, and unless the article is being edited with serious factual flaws, I keep in principle to 1rr and hurt my hands and wrists on talk. I do believe in the importance of community consensus and trust, although that will never stop me speaking my mind when I see
184:
requests from users requiring admin assistance or advice. I have the same opinion about editing as about admin work however: do not perform actions for which you lack the competence. This is a fundamental precept of any kind of public responsibility. Administratorship is, or perhaps rather ought to
87:
and has maintained absolute consistency in the excellence of his contributions. I've been a fairly steady contributor on the
English language wikipedia since 2004 and an admin/bureaucrat upon the Gaelic wikipedia for a number of years and am well acquainted with the competences required by an admin
3561:
was mean and condescending, especially when followed with the post that Rudget points out above. This is not the way to resolve disputes, it looks more like taunting to me, which is bound to stir them up rather than calm them. Plus, the past couple talk page archives show evidence of edit warring
309:
in the discussion, and increased my own stress by continually responding to posts ... thus increasing the intensity of the discussion ... and not giving myself opportunity to chill. I also didn't appreciate the role that guideline pages have in practice for gathering people on topics of oversight,
233:
page says 747 ... which sounds about correct, probably more than half of which have been medieval
Scottish articles. My article creation rate may have shrunk in the last year because these days (as said above) I focus on coverage in the individual article rather than general subject coverage. E.g.
388:
is that "ban" is a theoretical restriction on editing, whereas a block is the means of preventing a user from editing. As far as wikipedian usage goes, a "block" is an action performed by one administrator on a certain user, whereas "ban" is usually used to refer to the imposition of restrictions
246:
on my user space, I could have done likewise a few hundred stub or start articles. Like I said above, I edit based on my perception of my relative competence, rather than my interest, though the two fortunately very often coincide! I've also created a handful of wikiproject type things, including
3544:
valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but who seems quite unsuited to janitorial duties. His answers to questions 12 and 14, in particular, worry me. I'd add that the original response to Q8, even if it was fixed a posteriori, is a bad sign. Not everyone is cut out to clean up messes over
3317:
I do sincerely apologize if I got you riled. Anyone is free to read that page for themselves, but the one thing I probably should say is that the only reason I've not returned to that page in ages is because the debate is running its course. I think one should avoid enforcing one's own guideline
2212:
We're all human. We all make mistakes. We all fall from grace from time to time - Do I think you can effectively use the tools? Yes. Do I think you will abuse the tools? No. After reading through some of the comments brought up in the oppose section and doing my own checks into your contribution
2087:
I've carefully looked at the links in the various opposes (12 at the moment) and honestly can't really see the problems they are suppose to exemplify. Deacon appears to have an excellent grasp of policy as well as a long and exceptionally productive history on the project. And this is bad how? I
1478:
I like the answers to the questions, and I like the fact that he admits his mistakes. I also think it important that an admin should have article-writing experience, and am impressed by his FAs, GAs and DYKs. Regarding the objections raised in the oppose section, well we all make mistakes, these
612:
is an article I'm very unproud of, as with many of the earliest articles I did but haven't subsequently revisited. The Fergus one was done in my early days very lazily after I'd just read the Oram chapter for the first time. That's work. Actions, I refer to the above
Kenneth MacAlpin and Jogaila
2027:
Considering the qualifications in the answer, I think the statement he made in his original answer about cool-down blocks comes very close to the actual use of the policy: officially, never, in practice, under exceptional circumstances. (when we do, as I see it, we generally call it a block to
2839:
Do you really think being conservative about blocking would really make me unfit for the mop? I am very experienced in those situations, and do have reasons for this philosophy; there are also plenty of others who are less conservative. And after all, I didn't say I'd go around unblocking. :)
502:
Well, everything is situationally dependent. I don't like to generalize on anything, but I'll say a few things. Blocking is a last resort. Working in a situation where two users are reverting on an article and getting rather nasty on a talk page, I'd leave a nuanced message describing what's
3414:
Regardless of other experience, the candidate does not currently have right approach for adminship if they believe that cool down blocks are a good idea, plus the incivility issues raise are a concern. Overall candidate seems more likely to create extra admin work by annoying other editors.
715:
while at least. What I will add is that while this template ({{subst:uw-3rr}}) is less provocative than this template {{3RR}} (which assumes a lot of bad faith), a polite but informative and firm personalized message is what I'd prefer to see used, esp. if you yourself intend to enforce 3RR
291:
quote: "Practically nobody reads those articles and half those that do don't understand them, and half those that understand them don't agree with them and the few who are left are the editors". I have certainly been stressed on one or two occasions in the past however. The most unpleasant
310:
and at that point in time regarded this as well-meaning but misguided "interference". The experience I learned from that has sunk in. I have sometimes revealed my
Scottish distaste for beating round the bush. I've curbed this significantly as it is often interpreted as a violation of
1359:
Have had good experiences with this editor. Feel he has a good grasp of the relevant policies in the areas where I've seen him work, and understands the culture of WP. I think he'll be a good addition to the team (I already consider him a valuable member of the team, actually). -
422:. The encyclopedia can't function without that when non-admins ignore it ... much worse if admins do. It overhangs of course collective administrative decision-making about the enforcement of other policies so far as mere admins can specially or specifically enforce them.
1624:(not putting "support" down for reasons above. :) ). The Deacon has written many intelligent and worthwhile entries, well referenced, and highly informative and I also think that he will apply some common sense to some of the more stupid aspects of wikipedia too! --
706:
a block for violation is often not carried out if there's no clear evidence that the editor knew the rule. Speaking as a non-admin just now, I'd be more comfortable with 3RR enforcement in the hands of experienced admins than new ones, so I won't be patrolling
3429:
It's not unfair to point out that I didn't review the policy before answering that Cool Down Block question, which I revised within hours, but I think it's a tad unfair to speak in the present tense as if I favoured them. I explained this, for all it's worth,
1307:: After looking through his history (20,777 edits, with 13,323 in the mainspace), several archived userpages (mild disagreements at worst), 4 featured articles, and apparent trust of the community, I would say that the admin mop has been overdue. Good luck!--
2454:. None of the civility concerns really move me to think that this user would misuse the tools and besides that I think it is clear that he is a great contributor. Going forward, I encourage the user to review the civility issues and attempt to resolve them.
2477:
While I can see the civility concerns raised by the opponents of this RfA, I don't see anything that would indicate a propensity to misuse the tools. The tools can be taken away if the Deacon proves to be uncivil as an administrator, so granting them is
3032:- Your talk page is a little bothersome for me - hints of edit warring and issues of incivility as pointed out above. Also, your answer to question 8 raised my eyebrows slightly. Advocate of page protection for a content dispute? Cool down blocks? No.
3184:- again, no purpose of moving discussion along, but mocking other users who may hold an alterative view or look at a problem from a different angle to his own. Amongst other pages, I'm concerned about how Deacon went about putting his views forwards
2670:
To be sure, certain of the answers to the questions are at least a bit disquieting, but I am sufficiently convinced of the candidate's conversance with policy, deliberative temperament, and cordial demeanor as to conclude with some confidence that
1461:- incredibly knowledgeable editor in a number of areas and would put this to good use as a sysop. I've found him always willing to explain issues and be helpful. He does spend far too much time in WP than is good for him, but that's WP's gain.
304:
until I had my username changed a year ago. The
Scottish kings thing came about by my own mistakes, moving those pages without knowledge of the substantial opposition which existed or could be brought into existence. I suffered to an extent from
3522:
The issues raised here do seem to be substantive. Whilst I think the user has learnt from their mistakes, I think the civility issues mean they are not ready for adminship just yet. More uncivil admins is not what we need right now. Regards.
2069:
There are civility concerns but overall I don't think that Deacon would either abuse the tools or misuse them. Some more familiarity with the blocking policy wouldn't hurt either but overall these issues don't seem too serious in this case.
1906:- I don't think I have ever voted in one of these Rfa thingies before (when Deacon mentioned on my Talk yesterday that he was in an "Rfa" I misread it and thought that it meant "Request for Comment" and that he had been brought before the
950:
3261:- I did initially have a good oppose for this but it was lost in a session data muddle-up, but civility concerns are a major issue so per Jza84 and Deb - (who's talk page is a good example of the behvaiour conducted by DoP, like
944:
716:
proactively. It's obviously of course a judgment thing. A user with 2 reverts on one obscure page is different than one whose contribs show little more than lots of little groups of 3 successive reverts and few talk contribs.
352:
who goes around misusing or abusing his admin powers should be de-sysoped whether or not they've opted into such a system. With those sentiments in mind, adding myself while it remains non-superfluous is a likelihood.
460:
and would not insist on my versions, or in the most extreme cases, would not do so without seeking a wider base of opinion. Presumably the other admin would have good reasons, so again it'd probably never be an issue.
1001:. I would welcome further explication whether Deacon thinks he handled the dispute well in light of Q3 above. (I'm not asking for a rehash of the merits of the dispute, just whether Deacon thinks he handled it well.)
998:
3634:
Civility issues render me unable to place a support. However, you otherwise seem to be contributing well, and I would be happy to give my full support next time should this RFA fall through. Thanks, and good luck --
752:
It can be good to prevent the wasting of time and perhaps when it is very clear that extending someone's ordeal is the only thing someone will get from not invoking it (using projected introspection here!). However,
1983:
It is easier to say this as someone with a simillar or matching cultural perspective, than as someone with an alternative one though, of course. One "team's" straight-talk can be another's intrusion upon dignity.
693:
is there to reduce the impact of wikipedia's inevitable content disputes, not to furnish an excuse to block users. Obvious enough, but worth stating for the purposes of a spiritual overview. Nextly, the earlier
2989:. I hate to do this as your contributions here are stellar, but "you're the only person who wants this trash in the article njan" as an edit summary? Civility trumps even article building in my canon. Sorry.
235:
83:) - Deacon is a top class editor who has one of the best records you will find upon wikipedia. He is responsible for multiple Featured Articles, numerous Good and other articles not to mention countless
453:
If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included - what would you do?
3091:
20,000 edits is peanuts to me - I'm not saying it isn't impressive (in this case it is since he's a great editor, very dedicated), but in the grand scheme of things I take quality over quantity.
2702:
2948:. Deacon started with, "...everything is situationally dependent...blocking is a last resort..." I don't think that the answer to Q#8 should be a deal-breaker for receiving cleaning tools. Even
1922:
to be written by, and run by, total Tefal-heads. I hope Deacon gets this, and I hope that he may even become a classic Rouge Admin in time - they are about the best type of Admin (I just read
2302:
I would like Deacon to be a bit more constantly polite, but, all considered (in particular his incredible dedication and also his quality) I strongly feel that we need more admins like him.--
775:
657:
583:
433:
400:
2028:
prevent further disruption--the difference can be just a choice of words). I think he'd do as I--almost never consider it necessary to block except for blatant & continuing problems.
239:
3339:- Tends to work in Black or White - the "Halychina" vs "Galicia" debate tends to support what he is most comfortable with rather bluntly. Admins need to promote TEAMWORK in Knowledge!
3022:
1643:
1570:
3329:
3445:
133:
2962:
2919:
2905:
2884:
2869:
2851:
868:
3372:
1109:. Tons of experience; fixed his edit summary usage. A fellow mainspace contributor. What more could I want? Nothing. In fact, my support even comes with a free subscription to
147:
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:
3230:
1978:
2763:
821:
292:
experiences for me were the moves of
Scottish kings and the Jogaila affair, which occurred a year and a half and two years ago respectively, of which details can be seen on
3150:
727:
624:
534:
471:
363:
1999:
2781:
2747:
2612:
Highly intelligent contributor to the project. Would be an asset rather than a detriment, and the responsibility of being an administrator will soften some rough edges.
3562:(or at least other users accusing them of it). I'd rather see this user take a few more months to more clearly demonstrate that they've fixed these civility problems.
1236:
1222:
920:
269:. 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?
3730:
2188:
49:
2736:
I hate to not provide dif's like that, but just reading the archive I linked to, there seemed too many instances. And I did not make it all the way through the page.
1962:
1951:
1363:
1249:
1144:
112:
3300:
3185:
3163:
3134:
3117:
3086:
2974:
2930:
1099:
2776:
2758:
2742:
2712:
2257:
1758:
1503:
1488:
1217:
2672:
847:
3211:
I can only swear was not meant as ridicule.I think it may just have been that I wasn't conscious of being perceived as on the other side of the dialogue there.
1299:
1288:
879:
1667:â 20,760 edits â 3.28 average edits per page, which means to me article building â 1 very minimal civility concern, from what I can see or gather, equals
301:
256:
520:
97:
3704:
2771:
2753:
2737:
2707:
2533:
2374:
1753:
1745:
1212:
2014:
1918:
a "sweet-talker". But what he is is incredibly intelligent and hard-working. He is a total brainbox, and I know it sounds snobbish, but encyclopaedias
1044:
3139:
I don't get the impression it was just one dodgy edit summary. The recent talk archive linked above has several complaints about the user's civility.
2817:
1418:
3645:
2230:
Will make a bloody good admin. Opposes are laughable. Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship.
2158:
907:
646:: All I meant was articles I created. Didn't mean to assert ownership. As Bill Reid will tell you I'm always wanting them to be expanded by others.
572:
might as well be a magical incantation. Useful to have and to remind users of when conversations get stiff or when there's too much wiki-lawyering.
3629:
2840:
Anyways, I'm not bothered about the vote, but I'd like to benefit from hearing your reasoning. You can do it on my talk page if you like. Regards,
2662:
1706:
1696:
1379:
1161:
243:
2112:, seems level-headed enough, and I'm confident that the tools will not be abused. Just don't give any cool-down blocks! Awesome username, too.
3686:
3678:
3092:
3033:
3000:
2969:
2925:
2879:
2829:
2822:
2726:
1674:
667:
331:
2340:
1553:
1267:
2529:
2149:
1763:
1581:
1396:
169:
3592:
2717:
2549:
2404:
2179:
2019:
1184:
1061:
1012:
142:
3662:
3406:
3312:
3266:
2510:
Figure he is responsible enough to take civility concerns in mind when being an admin. If not, he seems supportive of admin recall. So sure.
2294:
2170:
2094:
1875:
1848:
1736:
1633:
1453:
1434:
1323:
1279:
636:
Your user page uses the phrase "My articles" for several entries. Are you comfortable with that wording and how do you think it fits in with
3424:
3388:
2808:
2430:
2116:
2061:
1935:
1816:
1709:
988:
914:
3691:
3318:
proposal when there's clear opposition, even if it's only small, though I see there is still broad support for the suggestion I made there.
2679:
2568:
2469:
2446:
2357:
2276:
2204:
1898:
1687:
1616:
1524:
1469:
1313:
1078:
864:
3715:
3058:
2834:
2731:
2621:
2604:
2537:
2520:
2505:
2323:
2079:
1834:
1780:
1596:
1206:
1124:
3575:
3464:
3348:
3291:
2587:
2104:
1796:
1541:
1351:
1335:
3514:
3490:
3274:
2421:
2311:
2285:
But I support anyway; I usually agree with Deb, and disagree with Deacon, on the substantive issues; but I don't regard him as uncivil.
2222:
3748:
3549:
3532:
3203:
2239:
967:
900:
80:
2890:
double-checked before I answered! Also, let me add that I wasn't really thinking of "cool-down block" in the rigid terms described by
2638:
2039:
1659:
3253:
758:
230:
1974:
1375:
2438:
while occasionally blunt, he's focused on the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and I do not believe he would missue the tools.
2175:
Good content editor, so he doesn't always haud his wheesht, all the better. Cool down blocks do occasionally have their place.--
248:
3361:, a guideline I'm not always a big fan of. I also thought you had been satisfied with the responses of myself and User:Irpen.
279:: I don't get stressed too much these days, as I've given myself the opportunity to learn the relevant lessons. Violations of
3545:
constructing an encyclopedia, and I don't think not having the bit removes any of the shine from Deacon's contributions. â
2910:
Do you think that revising a response in line with new information would be a desirable or undesirable quality in an admin?
287:
annoy me the most, but I've learned that these are inevitable in certain areas, so I console myself with a paraphrase of a
1842:
More article building admins are always welcome. Employing AGF, I don't really see enough in the opposes not to support.
2093:
editors. Deacon appears willing and able to engage in discussion, often in contentious areas. I see only positives here.
938:
3396:
Cool-down block is the tipping point, clearly indicating that the individual did not read throughly in blocking policy.
1275:- The user definitely has the experience and would make a great admin, or at least it is extremely likely that he will.
2137:
3431:
2397:
1727:
1293:
568:
all you like, but wikipedia works on consensus and the individuals and culture behind it. You work against that then
3128:
that he has 20k edits, but that one off-color comment in 20,000 shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Know what I mean? :)--
2370:
2168:
1448:
252:
33:
17:
2426:
Seems like a good user, but I kindly suggest you do pay attention to the concerns listed in the oppose section.
763:
somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause.
3440:
3367:
3324:
3225:
3212:
3181:
3111:
3052:
3017:
2900:
2846:
2199:
2143:
1894:
1565:
1036:
894:
816:
770:
754:
722:
652:
619:
578:
529:
509:
466:
428:
395:
358:
128:
74:
3558:
2725:
Maybe I am not looking hard enough, but would you mind telling me what section/incident you are referring to?
1788:
per answers to questions. Even the one he got wrong, which wasn't terribly wrong, and he corrected it anyway.
1401:
AGF, has learned lesson on cool down blocks and will never issue one. 4FAs move me from neutral (strongly...)
932:
3643:
1586:
1409:
3600:
Unfortunately, I believe there are too many little problems here, the recent civility issues in particular.
1968:
1369:
974:
3504:
3271:
2574:
1718:
1331:
806:
Though it's not policy, lots of those essay pages contain some very well thought out advice. I'd also cite
48:
3008:
3617:
3262:
3208:
3177:
2366:
3729:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2657:
2652:
2573:
Yes, there are some problematic points, but nobody's perfect and Deacon certainly doesn't look like an
1157:
1642:, he conducted himself very well under the circumstances despite being baited; and I support despite
3483:
3435:
3362:
3319:
3282:- too many concerns raised by others. I don't feel this user is ready yet. Come back soon, please.
3240:- if you want an idea why, you only have to look at some of his recent comments on my talk page, eg.
3220:
3145:
3012:
2995:
2895:
2841:
1771:- I've noticed the positive contributions of this user before. Should have been an admin long ago. --
1638:
He is quite clearly a great content editor. There are very slight civility concerns but I think here
1560:
1029:
890:
860:
811:
765:
717:
647:
614:
573:
564:
could be a torrential mixture. Seen loads of interpretations of it. All I'd say is that you can cite
524:
504:
461:
423:
390:
353:
165:
123:
70:
2968:
Alright, a user should not be judged on one question or incident. I will change to neutral for now.
683:, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?
3637:
1403:
926:
2945:
2336:
1264:
3601:
3588:
2246:
Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship."
2131:
1392:
853:
3241:
3658:
3402:
3354:
3308:
2752:
My apologies. Struck oppose. Only able to find three instances after all that weren't so bad.
2647:
2646:. A serious cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary editor. Practice makes perfect. Let it be.
2390:
1178:
1153:
1057:
807:
293:
3668:
3382:- "As mellow as the come". Really? I don't think so looking at the uncivility on Deb's page.
1018:
3420:
3140:
2990:
2803:
2595:
I hope this can help to stop the campaign of forking articles on
Eastern-European topics.--
2290:
2253:
2163:
1870:
1843:
1629:
1443:
1430:
1139:
843:
93:
2685:
8:
3216:
2051:
1931:
1701:
1322:
give him a chance to make mistakes, and if he makes mistakes, we'll worry about it then.
419:
2348:
Per all of the above. Everything seems fine to me, don't see any real reason to oppose.
3161:
3132:
3101:
3084:
3042:
2960:
2915:
2865:
2564:
2462:
2443:
2353:
2332:
2272:
1949:
1888:
1680:
1614:
1550:
1466:
1311:
1261:
1171:. The green color is just to mix things up a bit! =) Good editor, deserves the mop.
1095:
1074:
1008:
963:
609:
288:
226:
222:
214:
2157:
Good candidate probably will not abuse the tools but the old answer to Q#8 worries me
3584:
3569:
3460:
3344:
3287:
2698:"cool down blocks" are never appropriate. They tend to heat up rather than cool down.
2617:
2600:
2516:
2501:
2125:
2075:
1776:
1591:
1388:
1232:
1202:
1120:
797:
206:
108:
3180:). An example of talking about contributors rather than contributions is also found
1639:
1479:
don't seem particularly significant to me, and I'm confident he'll learn from them.
1084:
Hmm, somewhat disappointing answer to #8, which could be improved upon by reviewing
3654:
3509:
3397:
3304:
2949:
2791:
2705:
comments from other users show candidate to be quick to wrath and ready to revert.
2546:
2383:
2176:
2099:
1923:
1794:
1537:
1499:
1484:
1327:
1174:
1053:
994:
986:
708:
703:
3528:
3416:
3383:
3198:
2796:
2417:
2307:
2286:
2249:
2218:
1994:
1861:
1625:
1440:
1426:
1276:
1246:
1132:
839:
319:
210:
89:
64:
3077:
2953:
2483:
2482:. I would, however, like the candidate to affirm both a renewed commitment to
2479:
2427:
2235:
2113:
2047:
1927:
1806:
1111:
743:
561:
482:
280:
218:
173:
3219:
for a very perceptive comment he made. Again, I regret this impression of me.
2924:
I would say leave the original response, and place the new response under it.
3742:
3723:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
3477:
3249:
3158:
3129:
3081:
3011:, I have in the past been impatient with verifiably false content additions.
2957:
2911:
2891:
2875:
2861:
2857:
2676:
2634:
2559:
2487:
2457:
2439:
2350:
2268:
2191:
2035:
1946:
1884:
1655:
1609:
1520:
1515:
1462:
1308:
1091:
1085:
1070:
1004:
699:
690:
680:
637:
569:
565:
557:
547:
516:
443:
412:
What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
385:
342:
311:
306:
284:
84:
1211:
Sometimes we write "oppose", but it's too confusing and we are only joking.
3709:
3563:
3456:
3358:
3340:
3283:
2613:
2596:
2512:
2497:
2320:
2187:. I don't forsee any abuse here. All questions bar 8 answered well enough.
2071:
1827:
1772:
1228:
1198:
1116:
315:
297:
177:
104:
3499:
3487:
3215:
was indeed a partial comment on a contributor, but I was merely praising
2956:. It's apparent from his prior history that he would not abuse the mop.--
2578:
1945:: one of the best RfA entries I have ever seen (the edit summary, too)!--
1789:
1533:
1495:
1480:
1344:
981:
698:
intervention can occur, the better. If you suspect the user doesn't know
88:
and dont doubt that Deacon is in posession of the necessary attributes.
3498:
The issues raised here in regards to Q#8 just bother me a bit... sorry.
2673:
the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive
2331:
a stellar candidate who managed to keep neutrality in hot edit warrings
1907:
3546:
3524:
3192:
2413:
2303:
2214:
1988:
786:
593:
1926:
a few days ago - made me laugh). Lord preserve us from the thickies!--
3733:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
2231:
993:
I see some potential for civility problems based on the dispute with
170:
Knowledge:Deletion_today#List_of_candidates_.28updates_frequently.29
3473:
3301:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Scotland guidelines
3245:
2630:
2629:
truly dedicated editor! We definitely need more such contributors.
2030:
1651:
966:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
389:
and/or a block by the consensus of the wider wikipedian community.
1739:
1730:
1721:
603:
What work or actions on
Knowledge are you least proud of and why?
2545:. As prolific, sensible and helpful an editor as there can be. --
2284:
Is this why Deacon is being comparatively nice this week? :-: -->
1494:
Striking my support, as Deb's comments have made me think again.
1052:. Great encyclopedia builder and a good member of the community.
57:
2365:
has been around since Feb 2005 with over 13000 mainspace edits.
2213:
history and talk pages, I feel you will be fine as an admin. --
1883:
for me, the amount of 'pedia building outweighs the civility.
1860:
content contributor, will be a strong asset to our project. --
1911:
1152:
Support without reservation. A great encyclopedia builder. --
120:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
3486:) and other evidence of conflicts on Deacon's talk page. --
1804:
great nomination. Strong editor with a proven track record.
2528:. Great contributor, mature enough to learn from mistakes.
838:
Would you be subject to recall, and under what conditions?
761:
are also important to bear in mind. As the latter says, if
60:
1646:
some pro-soccer bias perhaps ;). No, seriously, I give my
1717:
Perfect edit summary usage, and a nice editor overall. -
195:. What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
3299:- have had a very negative experience with this user at
1130:
Deserves and has earned it, and for the right reasons.
3357:. In that instance I perceived clear enforcement of
3072:
hate to keep blasting this annoying trumpet, but is
2795:
2144:
2138:
2132:
2126:
1131:
3653:per civility concerns and removing cited material.
257:
Knowledge:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board
168:, I would patrol that for lagging closures, patrol
1582:
759:WP:Snowball clause#What the snowball clause is not
378:What is the difference between a block and a ban?
3176:attempts at engaging with the community (such as
1592:
1587:
1241:Believe it or not, I never realized that putting
999:Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain
384:: The simple technical distinction as defined on
3740:
980:My questions, they are being stolen, verbatim!
345:? Will you add yourself to it, why or why not?
3583:- not quite ready, too many lingering issues.
3353:The only thing I think you may thinking of is
154:What admin work do you intend to take part in?
1090:revising the answer was spot on, nice touch.
2894:. Shall I make my answer clearer? Regards,
1580:Excellent editor would make a fine admin --
1189:Great editor. PS- why are you guys writing
880:Requests for adminship/Deacon of Pndapetzim
2878:, that will explain my reasoning. Cheers,
968:Special:Contributions/Deacon of Pndapetzim
3677:Changed to neutral from my oppose above.
180:, as well as making myself available for
3685:Changed back to oppose (see my oppose).
1824:Shows good judgement. Proven experience.
962:Please keep discussion constructive and
495:When should "cool down blocks" be used?
3540:; we have here what I beleive to be an
249:Knowledge:WikiProject Medieval Scotland
14:
3741:
2856:As mentioned above, perhaps reviewing
2703:User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive VIII
2267:Will make good use of the admin tools
1292:
1069:. Looks like an excellent candidate.
830:Optional question from Septentionalis
1960:
1361:
3703:Gut feeling. Shows experience, but
23:
24:
3760:
3749:Successful requests for adminship
2944:, Q#8 was a loaded question (per
515:In the formal terms described by
234:for what has been done so far on
56:Ended at (73/23/1); ended 20:10,
888:Links for Deacon of Pndapetzim:
556:It's a difficult one, isn't it?
253:Knowledge:WikiProject Washington
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
3620:
3602:
3104:
3094:
3045:
3035:
2797:
2382:- sound answers to questions! â
1807:
1193:in your votes? We're under the
1133:
513:) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
221:, and even more substantial in
3157:Can anyone show some diff's?--
2804:
2490:. That would turn my support
1260:Well, I would do, wouldn't I?
1140:
867:. For the edit count, see the
755:Knowledge:Process is important
13:
1:
3716:15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3692:04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3683:03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3472:per discussions mentioned by
3407:16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3389:00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3373:17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3349:03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3330:17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3313:03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3292:02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3275:20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3254:19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3231:17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3204:15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3164:05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3151:05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3135:04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3118:04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3087:04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3078:tools to clean others' messes
3059:04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3023:04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3001:03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2975:03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2963:03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2952:said that being an admin was
2931:04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2920:03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2906:03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2885:03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2870:03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2852:03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2835:00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2827:03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2809:01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2782:21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2764:02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2748:01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2732:01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2718:01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2062:15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2040:09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2020:05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1952:05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1936:05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1899:22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1876:22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1849:20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1835:18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1817:16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1797:00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1781:22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1764:21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1746:20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1710:20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1688:19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1660:16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1634:16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1617:16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1597:15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1571:15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1554:14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1542:13:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1525:12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1504:21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1489:11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1470:09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1454:08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1435:08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1419:07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1397:06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1387:Seems like a good candidate.
1380:06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1352:06:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1336:05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1314:03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1300:03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1280:02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1268:01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1250:02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1237:01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1223:01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1207:01:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1185:01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1162:01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1145:01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1125:01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1100:03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1079:00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1062:00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1045:00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
989:00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
785:More optional questions from
666:More optional questions from
658:16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
625:16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
584:02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
535:04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
472:01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
434:02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
401:01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
364:01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
134:00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
113:23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
98:19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
2017:
1971:
1854:Goodness Gracious Me Support
1372:
1345:
1343:Trust not to abuse tools. -
1295:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
483:
7:
2491:
2100:
863:'s edit summary usage with
143:Questions for the candidate
10:
3765:
3707:makes an excellent point.
2412:Good content contributor.
1393:(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!)
1245:was completely pointless.
341:What are your thoughts on
103:I second that nomination.
3663:19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3646:11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3630:07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3593:03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3576:02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3550:00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3533:23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3515:09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3491:06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3465:01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3446:07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3425:00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2680:20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2663:19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2639:19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2622:17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2605:15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2588:15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2569:14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2550:06:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2538:06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2521:05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2506:04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2470:03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2447:22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2431:21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2422:19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2405:17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2375:06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2358:05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2341:04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2324:04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2312:00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2295:22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2277:21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2258:10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2240:20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2223:20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2205:01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2180:00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
2171:20:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2150:19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2117:06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2105:02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2080:02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2013:. Seems trustworthy. --
2000:00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1979:01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1013:18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
848:21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
822:01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
808:Knowledge:Don't be a dick
776:01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
728:01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
166:Knowledge:Requested moves
3726:Please do not modify it.
3622:
3076:worthy of not receiving
2860:would be of assistance.
2802:
2695:Oh, boy. Back to Oppose.
1640:Talk:Kiev#Requested_move
1138:
796:What is your opinion on
742:What is your opinion on
679:What is your opinion on
546:What is your opinion on
330:Optional Questions from
122:I accept with pleasure.
3455:per civility concerns.
1924:Doc Glasgow's User page
442:Optional Question from
38:Please do not modify it
2794:pointed out, sorry...
2367:Pharaoh of the Wizards
2248:- Well said that man.
1532:- trustworthy editor.
300:page. Note that I was
3355:Talk:Galicia-Volhynia
1027:Excellent candidate.
294:Talk:Kenneth MacAlpin
34:request for adminship
3436:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3363:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3320:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3221:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3013:Deacon of Pndapetzim
2896:Deacon of Pndapetzim
2842:Deacon of Pndapetzim
2319:per the user above.
1604:per answer to 7 and
1561:Deacon of Pndapetzim
1513:No problems here. --
1291:edit. Sincerely, --
1031:One Night In Hackney
891:Deacon of Pndapetzim
861:Deacon of Pndapetzim
812:Deacon of Pndapetzim
766:Deacon of Pndapetzim
718:Deacon of Pndapetzim
648:Deacon of Pndapetzim
615:Deacon of Pndapetzim
574:Deacon of Pndapetzim
525:Deacon of Pndapetzim
505:Deacon of Pndapetzim
462:Deacon of Pndapetzim
424:Deacon of Pndapetzim
391:Deacon of Pndapetzim
354:Deacon of Pndapetzim
225:and (most recently)
124:Deacon of Pndapetzim
71:Deacon of Pndapetzim
50:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3639:Anonymous Dissident
3217:User:Breadandcheese
1957:And another Comment
1404:dihydrogen monoxide
875:RfAs for this user:
420:Knowledge:Consensus
3714:
3642:
2517:wasn't he just...?
2488:openness to recall
1792:
984:
970:before commenting.
610:Fergus of Galloway
289:Yes Prime Minister
39:
3708:
3705:User:Dlohcierekim
3636:
3574:
3443:
3370:
3327:
3228:
3149:
3113:
3108:
3054:
3049:
3020:
2999:
2903:
2874:(ec) Please read
2849:
2468:
2402:
2395:
2388:
2293:
2203:
2195:
2155:Very Weak Support
2058:
1790:
1686:
1568:
1439:Support per nom.
1417:
1395:
982:
846:
819:
773:
746:RFA's and AFD's?
725:
655:
622:
581:
532:
512:
469:
431:
398:
361:
131:
37:
3756:
3728:
3712:
3689:
3681:
3640:
3627:
3625:
3624:
3615:
3572:
3568:
3566:
3512:
3507:
3502:
3439:
3432:here to Sallicio
3366:
3323:
3269:
3224:
3202:
3143:
3124:My point wasn't
3112:
3106:
3102:
3096:
3053:
3047:
3043:
3037:
3016:
2993:
2972:
2928:
2899:
2882:
2845:
2832:
2825:
2807:
2805:
2801:
2799:
2792:User:OhanaUnited
2790:Don't like what
2779:
2774:
2761:
2756:
2745:
2740:
2729:
2715:
2710:
2660:
2655:
2650:
2584:
2567:
2562:
2495:
2475:Lukewarm Support
2467:
2465:
2455:
2398:
2391:
2384:
2356:
2289:
2197:
2194:
2146:
2140:
2134:
2128:
2102:
2056:
2018:
1998:
1977:
1973:
1965:
1964:Kathryn NicDhĂ na
1873:
1868:
1830:
1813:
1761:
1756:
1741:
1732:
1723:
1704:
1699:
1685:
1683:
1672:
1612:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1564:
1523:
1518:
1451:
1447:
1407:
1391:
1378:
1374:
1366:
1365:Kathryn NicDhĂ na
1349:
1298:
1296:
1227:It's tradition.
1220:
1215:
1183:
1169:
1154:Malleus Fatuorum
1143:
1141:
1137:
1135:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1011:
995:User:Benkenobi18
954:
913:
854:General comments
842:
815:
769:
721:
670:
651:
618:
577:
528:
508:
487:
485:
465:
427:
394:
357:
127:
3764:
3763:
3759:
3758:
3757:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3731:this nomination
3724:
3710:
3687:
3679:
3671:
3638:
3626:
3618:
3570:
3564:
3510:
3505:
3500:
3267:
3189:
3141:Espresso Addict
3116:
3107:
3057:
3048:
2991:Espresso Addict
2970:
2926:
2880:
2830:
2823:
2777:
2772:
2759:
2754:
2743:
2738:
2727:
2713:
2708:
2688:
2658:
2653:
2648:
2580:
2560:
2558:
2463:
2456:
2349:
2287:Septentrionalis
2202:
2148:
2055:
1985:
1963:
1910:to receive the
1871:
1862:
1833:
1828:
1773:Amir E. Aharoni
1759:
1754:
1702:
1697:
1681:
1673:
1610:
1516:
1514:
1449:
1445:
1413:
1364:
1294:
1218:
1213:
1172:
1167:
1042:
1037:
1030:
1028:
1021:
1002:
977:
906:
889:
885:
856:
840:Septentrionalis
668:
592:Questions from
481:
480:Questions from
320:User:Stemonitis
145:
53:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3762:
3752:
3751:
3736:
3735:
3719:
3718:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3670:
3667:
3666:
3665:
3648:
3632:
3619:
3595:
3578:
3552:
3535:
3517:
3493:
3467:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3409:
3391:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3334:
3333:
3332:
3294:
3277:
3265:for example).
3256:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3173:Strong oppose:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3167:
3166:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3103:
3099:
3044:
3040:
3027:
3026:
3025:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2872:
2816:- Per Q#8 and
2814:Back to Oppose
2811:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2770:to s Per water
2768:
2767:
2766:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2687:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2665:
2641:
2624:
2607:
2590:
2575:angry mastodon
2571:
2552:
2540:
2523:
2508:
2472:
2449:
2433:
2424:
2407:
2377:
2360:
2343:
2329:Strong Support
2326:
2314:
2297:
2279:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2225:
2207:
2198:
2192:Ferdia O'Brien
2182:
2173:
2152:
2130:
2120:
2107:
2085:Strong Support
2082:
2064:
2052:
2042:
2022:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1954:
1901:
1878:
1851:
1837:
1825:
1819:
1799:
1783:
1766:
1748:
1712:
1690:
1671:. Good Luck.
1669:strong support
1662:
1648:strong support
1636:
1619:
1608:answer to 8. â
1599:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1544:
1527:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1492:
1456:
1437:
1421:
1411:
1399:
1382:
1354:
1338:
1316:
1302:
1282:
1270:
1262:Angus McLellan
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1187:
1164:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1064:
1047:
1034:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
991:
976:
973:
959:
958:
957:
955:
884:
883:
882:
874:
873:
872:
865:mathbot's tool
855:
852:
851:
850:
833:
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
783:
781:
780:
779:
778:
735:
733:
732:
731:
730:
663:
662:
661:
660:
630:
629:
628:
627:
589:
588:
587:
586:
560:combined with
540:
539:
538:
537:
477:
476:
475:
474:
439:
438:
437:
436:
406:
405:
404:
403:
371:
369:
368:
367:
366:
327:
326:
325:
324:
271:
270:
263:
262:
261:
260:
197:
196:
189:
188:
187:
186:
156:
155:
144:
141:
139:
137:
136:
116:
115:
52:
47:
45:
43:
42:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3761:
3750:
3747:
3746:
3744:
3734:
3732:
3727:
3721:
3720:
3717:
3713:
3706:
3702:
3699:
3698:
3693:
3690:
3684:
3682:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3664:
3660:
3656:
3652:
3649:
3647:
3644:
3641:
3633:
3631:
3628:
3616:
3613:
3609:
3605:
3599:
3596:
3594:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3579:
3577:
3573:
3567:
3560:
3556:
3553:
3551:
3548:
3543:
3539:
3536:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3521:
3518:
3516:
3513:
3508:
3503:
3497:
3494:
3492:
3489:
3485:
3482:
3479:
3475:
3471:
3468:
3466:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3451:
3447:
3442:
3437:
3433:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3422:
3418:
3413:
3410:
3408:
3405:
3404:
3401:
3400:
3395:
3392:
3390:
3387:
3386:
3381:
3378:
3374:
3369:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3346:
3342:
3338:
3335:
3331:
3326:
3321:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3311:
3310:
3306:
3302:
3298:
3295:
3293:
3289:
3285:
3281:
3278:
3276:
3273:
3270:
3264:
3260:
3257:
3255:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3236:
3232:
3227:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3210:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3200:
3196:
3194:
3187:
3183:
3179:
3174:
3171:
3165:
3162:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3147:
3142:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3133:
3131:
3127:
3123:
3119:
3114:
3109:
3098:
3097:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3085:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3055:
3050:
3039:
3038:
3031:
3028:
3024:
3019:
3014:
3010:
3007:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2997:
2992:
2988:
2985:
2977:
2976:
2973:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2961:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2940:
2932:
2929:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2902:
2897:
2893:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2883:
2877:
2873:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2848:
2843:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2833:
2828:
2826:
2818:
2815:
2812:
2810:
2806:
2800:
2793:
2789:
2788:
2783:
2780:
2775:
2769:
2765:
2762:
2757:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2746:
2741:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2730:
2724:
2720:
2719:
2716:
2711:
2706:
2704:
2699:
2696:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2681:
2678:
2674:
2669:
2666:
2664:
2661:
2656:
2651:
2645:
2642:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2625:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2608:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2591:
2589:
2586:
2583:
2576:
2572:
2570:
2566:
2563:
2556:
2553:
2551:
2548:
2544:
2541:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2519:
2518:
2514:
2509:
2507:
2504:
2503:
2499:
2494:
2489:
2485:
2481:
2476:
2473:
2471:
2466:
2461:
2460:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2434:
2432:
2429:
2425:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2408:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2396:
2394:
2389:
2387:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2355:
2352:
2347:
2344:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2333:Alex Bakharev
2330:
2327:
2325:
2322:
2318:
2315:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2298:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2211:
2208:
2206:
2201:
2193:
2190:
2186:
2183:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2172:
2169:
2167:
2166:
2162:
2161:
2156:
2153:
2151:
2147:
2141:
2135:
2129:
2124:
2121:
2118:
2115:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2098:
2097:
2091:
2086:
2083:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2068:
2065:
2063:
2060:
2059:
2049:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2032:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2016:
2012:
2009:
2001:
1996:
1992:
1990:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1958:
1955:
1953:
1950:
1948:
1944:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1896:
1893:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1874:
1869:
1866:
1859:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1846:
1841:
1838:
1836:
1832:
1831:
1823:
1820:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1812:
1811:
1803:
1800:
1798:
1795:
1793:
1787:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1749:
1747:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1705:
1700:
1694:
1691:
1689:
1684:
1678:
1677:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1615:
1613:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1598:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1552:
1551:Mike Christie
1548:
1545:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1415:
1406:
1405:
1400:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1180:
1176:
1170:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1033:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1000:
996:
992:
990:
987:
985:
979:
978:
972:
971:
969:
965:
956:
952:
949:
946:
943:
940:
937:
934:
931:
928:
925:
922:
919:
916:
912:
909:
905:
902:
899:
896:
892:
887:
886:
881:
878:
877:
876:
870:
866:
862:
858:
857:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
832:
829:
828:
823:
818:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
799:
795:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
777:
772:
767:
764:
760:
756:
751:
748:
747:
745:
741:
738:
737:
736:
729:
724:
719:
714:
710:
705:
701:
697:
692:
688:
685:
684:
682:
678:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
659:
654:
649:
645:
642:
641:
639:
635:
632:
631:
626:
621:
616:
611:
608:
605:
604:
602:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
585:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
551:
549:
545:
542:
541:
536:
531:
526:
522:
519:, never. See
518:
514:
511:
506:
500:
497:
496:
494:
491:
490:
489:
488:
486:
473:
468:
463:
458:
455:
454:
452:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:User:TravisTX
435:
430:
425:
421:
417:
414:
413:
411:
408:
407:
402:
397:
392:
387:
383:
380:
379:
377:
374:
373:
372:
365:
360:
355:
350:
347:
346:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:User:Tiptoety
321:
317:
313:
308:
303:
302:User:Calgacus
299:
295:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
268:
265:
264:
258:
254:
250:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
200:
199:
198:
194:
191:
190:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
153:
150:
149:
148:
140:
135:
130:
125:
121:
118:
117:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
100:
99:
95:
91:
86:
82:
79:
76:
72:
68:
67:
66:
62:
59:
51:
46:
41:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3725:
3722:
3700:
3676:
3650:
3621:Call me MoP!
3611:
3607:
3603:
3597:
3585:Sumoeagle179
3580:
3557:- I thought
3554:
3541:
3537:
3519:
3495:
3480:
3469:
3452:
3411:
3403:
3398:
3393:
3384:
3379:
3336:
3307:
3296:
3279:
3258:
3237:
3191:
3172:
3125:
3093:
3073:
3069:
3065:
3034:
3029:
3005:
2986:
2967:
2941:
2820:
2813:
2700:
2697:
2694:
2693:
2667:
2643:
2626:
2609:
2592:
2581:
2554:
2542:
2525:
2511:
2500:
2492:
2474:
2458:
2451:
2435:
2409:
2399:
2392:
2385:
2379:
2362:
2345:
2328:
2316:
2299:
2281:
2264:
2245:
2227:
2209:
2184:
2164:
2159:
2154:
2127:Cold Phoenix
2122:
2109:
2095:
2089:
2084:
2066:
2050:
2044:
2029:
2024:
2010:
1987:
1961:
1956:
1942:
1919:
1915:
1903:
1891:
1880:
1864:
1857:
1853:
1844:
1839:
1826:
1821:
1809:
1808:
1805:
1801:
1785:
1768:
1750:
1738:
1737:
1729:
1728:
1720:
1719:
1714:
1692:
1675:
1668:
1664:
1647:
1621:
1605:
1601:
1577:
1546:
1529:
1510:
1475:
1474:
1458:
1423:
1402:
1389:RyanGerbil10
1384:
1362:
1356:
1346:
1340:
1318:
1304:
1284:
1272:
1242:
1194:
1190:
1173:
1166:
1129:
1112:The Signpost
1110:
1106:
1083:
1066:
1049:
1035:
1024:
1003:
961:
960:
947:
941:
935:
929:
923:
917:
910:
903:
897:
835:
803:
793:
784:
782:
762:
749:
739:
734:
712:
711:, not for a
695:
686:
676:
665:
664:
643:
633:
606:
600:
591:
590:
553:
543:
501:
498:
492:
479:
478:
456:
450:
441:
440:
415:
409:
381:
375:
370:
348:
338:
329:
328:
316:User:Kafziel
298:Talk:Jogaila
276:
266:
244:this article
240:this article
236:this article
202:
192:
181:
161:
151:
146:
138:
119:
77:
69:
55:
54:
44:
30:
28:
3655:El.Bastardo
3399:OhanaUnited
3305:Warofdreams
3009:fair enough
2954:no big deal
2480:no big deal
2386:TreasuryTag
2015:Iterator12n
1695:per above.
1175:Malinaccier
1054:Majoreditor
3417:TigerShark
3385:Netkinetic
2291:PMAnderson
2088:guess one
1845:Black Kite
1626:MacRusgail
1588:(Contribs)
1441:Ben MacDui
1277:Parent5446
1247:Parent5446
975:Discussion
844:PMAnderson
798:WP:NOSPADE
296:, and the
65:Kingturtle
31:successful
3542:extremely
2821:Per Q#8.
2798:~ Dreamy
2778:cierekim
2760:cierekim
2744:cierekim
2714:cierekim
2428:Acalamari
2114:Lankiveil
2054:<: -->
2048:Ruhrfisch
1928:Mais oui!
1810:Gtstricky
1760:cierekim
1751:per water
1707:NHRHS2010
1463:Bill Reid
1219:cierekim
1197:section.
1134:~ Dreamy
933:block log
869:talk page
709:WP:AN/3RR
704:WP:AN/3RR
484:Chetblong
323:problems.
242:and this
231:this page
63:(UTC) by
3743:Category
3688:Tiptoety
3680:Tiptoety
3484:contribs
3159:Sallicio
3130:Sallicio
3095:Wisdom89
3082:Sallicio
3036:Wisdom89
2971:Tiptoety
2958:Sallicio
2927:Tiptoety
2912:Ronnotel
2881:Tiptoety
2862:Ronnotel
2831:Tiptoety
2824:Tiptoety
2728:Tiptoety
2484:niceness
2459:SorryGuy
2440:Ealdgyth
2400:contribs
2346:Support.
2269:Dreamspy
1947:Sallicio
1895:contribs
1885:Casliber
1858:prolific
1731:Favorite
1676:Shoessss
1385:Support.
1309:Sallicio
1092:Ronnotel
1071:Ronnotel
1005:Argyriou
901:contribs
669:Tiptoety
255:and the
227:Dunblane
223:Galloway
215:Aberdeen
81:contribs
3711:Spencer
3701:Neutral
3669:Neutral
3565:delldot
3457:Epbr123
3341:Bobanni
3284:Bearian
3066:Comment
3006:Comment
2942:Comment
2701:Oppose
2668:Support
2644:Support
2627:Support
2614:Dr. Dan
2610:Support
2597:Dojarca
2593:Support
2555:Support
2543:Support
2530:MrPrada
2526:Support
2513:seresin
2493:red hot
2486:and an
2452:Support
2436:Support
2410:Support
2380:Support
2363:Support
2317:Support
2300:Support
2282:Support
2265:Support
2250:siarach
2228:Support
2210:Support
2185:Support
2123:Support
2110:Support
2072:JoshuaZ
2067:support
2045:Support
2025:Support
2011:Support
1943:Comment
1904:Support
1881:Support
1840:Support
1829:ÎÏ
ÏÎŹÏÏÏ
1822:Support
1802:Support
1786:Support
1769:Support
1715:Support
1693:Support
1665:Support
1606:revised
1602:Support
1583:Barryob
1578:Support
1547:Support
1530:Support
1521:iva1979
1511:Support
1476:Support
1459:Support
1427:siarach
1424:Support
1357:Support
1341:Support
1319:Support
1305:SUPPORT
1285:Support
1273:Support
1243:Support
1229:Useight
1199:GoodDay
1195:support
1191:support
1168:Support
1117:Useight
1107:Support
1067:Support
1050:Support
1025:Support
1019:Support
908:deleted
744:snowing
562:WP:BOLD
281:WP:NPOV
207:Dunkeld
174:WP:AN/I
105:GoodDay
90:siarach
58:4 March
3651:Oppose
3614:uppets
3606:aster
3598:Oppose
3581:Oppose
3555:Oppose
3538:Oppose
3520:Oppose
3496:Oppose
3488:Elkman
3470:Oppose
3453:Oppose
3412:Oppose
3394:Oppose
3380:Oppose
3337:Oppose
3297:Oppose
3280:Oppose
3268:Rudget
3259:Oppose
3238:Oppose
3070:really
3030:Oppose
2987:Oppose
2892:WP:CDB
2876:WP:CDB
2858:WP:CDB
2686:Oppose
2654:shelok
2547:Ghirla
2096:Pigman
1908:Rector
1863:Cactus
1791:Avruch
1740:Cookie
1722:Milk's
1611:Travis
1593:(Talk)
1534:Addhoc
1496:NSH001
1481:NSH001
1347:Shudde
1324:Shalom
1265:(Talk)
1086:WP:CDB
1009:(talk)
983:Avruch
700:WP:3RR
696:useful
691:WP:3RR
681:WP:3RR
638:WP:OWN
570:WP:IAR
566:WP:IAR
558:WP:IAR
548:WP:IAR
517:WP:CDB
386:WP:BAN
343:WP:AOR
312:WP:AGF
307:WP:OWN
285:WP:SYN
217:, and
182:ad hoc
3547:Coren
3525:Woody
3359:WP:UE
3193:Jza84
2950:Jimbo
2659:honov
2649:Steve
2565:drama
2496:. --
2464:Talk
2414:RMHED
2321:Ostap
2304:Aldux
2215:Ozgod
2165:fusco
2090:might
2053:: -->
1989:Jza84
1920:ought
1912:tawse
1698:NHRHS
1682:Chat
1622:Ditto
1332:Peace
1328:Hello
997:over
964:civil
915:count
787:Jza84
594:Jza84
211:Moray
178:WP:AN
16:<
3659:talk
3589:talk
3571:talk
3559:this
3529:talk
3501:Jmlk
3478:talk
3461:talk
3441:Talk
3421:talk
3368:Talk
3345:talk
3325:Talk
3309:talk
3288:talk
3263:this
3250:talk
3242:this
3226:Talk
3213:This
3209:This
3199:talk
3186:here
3182:here
3178:here
3146:talk
3126:just
3074:that
3068:: I
3018:Talk
2996:talk
2946:this
2916:talk
2901:Talk
2866:talk
2847:Talk
2773:Dloh
2755:Dloh
2739:Dloh
2709:Dloh
2635:talk
2631:M.K.
2618:talk
2601:talk
2534:talk
2502:ohio
2444:Talk
2418:talk
2393:talk
2371:talk
2354:khoi
2351:Khoi
2337:talk
2308:talk
2273:talk
2254:talk
2236:talk
2232:Nick
2219:talk
2160:Alex
2076:talk
2036:talk
1995:talk
1932:talk
1889:talk
1856:- A
1777:talk
1755:Dloh
1703:2010
1656:talk
1644:here
1630:talk
1566:Talk
1538:talk
1500:talk
1485:talk
1467:Talk
1450:Walk
1431:talk
1289:this
1287:per
1233:talk
1214:Dloh
1203:talk
1179:talk
1158:talk
1121:talk
1096:talk
1075:talk
1058:talk
945:rfar
927:logs
895:talk
859:See
817:Talk
771:Talk
757:and
723:Talk
653:Talk
620:Talk
579:Talk
530:Talk
521:here
510:Talk
467:Talk
429:Talk
396:Talk
359:Talk
318:and
283:and
219:Ross
176:and
129:Talk
109:talk
94:talk
85:DYKs
75:talk
61:2008
3474:Deb
3246:Deb
3190:--
2677:Joe
2675:.
2579:Max
2561:Lra
2498:SSB
2200:(C)
2177:Doc
2031:DGG
1986:--
1916:not
1867:man
1652:EJF
1038:303
951:spi
921:AfD
794:14.
740:13.
713:big
677:12.
601:10.
3745::
3661:)
3610:f
3591:)
3531:)
3463:)
3444:)
3423:)
3371:)
3347:)
3328:)
3290:)
3252:)
3229:)
3110:/
3051:/
3021:)
2918:)
2904:)
2868:)
2850:)
2819:-
2637:)
2620:)
2603:)
2585:em
2577:.
2536:)
2515:|
2442:|
2420:)
2373:)
2339:)
2310:)
2275:)
2256:)
2238:)
2221:)
2078:)
2038:)
1934:)
1897:)
1779:)
1679:|
1658:)
1650:.
1632:)
1569:)
1540:)
1502:)
1487:)
1465:|
1433:)
1334:)
1330:âą
1235:)
1205:)
1160:)
1123:)
1115:.
1098:)
1088:.
1077:)
1060:)
939:lu
836:15
820:)
804:A:
800:?
774:)
750:A:
726:)
689::
687:A:
656:)
644:A:
640:?
634:11
623:)
607:A:
582:)
554:A:
550:?
544:9.
533:)
523:.
499:A:
493:8.
470:)
457:A:
451:7.
432:)
416:A:
410:6.
399:)
382:A.
376:5.
362:)
349:A:
339:4.
251:,
238:,
213:,
209:,
172:,
152:1.
132:)
111:)
96:)
36:.
3657:(
3623:âș
3612:P
3608:o
3604:M
3587:(
3527:(
3511:7
3506:1
3481:·
3476:(
3459:(
3438:(
3419:(
3365:(
3343:(
3322:(
3286:(
3272:.
3248:(
3223:(
3201:)
3197:(
3195:·
3148:)
3144:(
3115:)
3105:T
3100:(
3056:)
3046:T
3041:(
3015:(
2998:)
2994:(
2914:(
2898:(
2864:(
2844:(
2633:(
2616:(
2599:(
2582:S
2532:(
2416:(
2369:(
2335:(
2306:(
2271:(
2252:(
2244:"
2234:(
2217:(
2196:/
2189:âŻ
2145:M
2142:\
2139:C
2136:/
2133:T
2119:.
2101:âż
2074:(
2057:°
2034:(
1997:)
1993:(
1991:·
1975:â«
1972:âŠ
1969:â«
1930:(
1892:·
1887:(
1872:â
1865:.
1775:(
1654:(
1628:(
1563:(
1536:(
1517:S
1498:(
1483:(
1446:/
1429:(
1416:)
1414:0
1412:2
1410:H
1408:(
1376:â«
1373:âŠ
1370:â«
1326:(
1231:(
1201:(
1181:)
1177:(
1156:(
1119:(
1094:(
1073:(
1056:(
953:)
948:·
942:·
936:·
930:·
924:·
918:·
911:·
904:·
898:·
893:(
871:.
814:(
768:(
720:(
650:(
617:(
576:(
527:(
507:(
464:(
426:(
393:(
356:(
277:A
267:3
259:.
203:A
193:2
162:A
126:(
107:(
92:(
78:·
73:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.