338:
basis of
Knowledge from which all other policies and guildlines derive. By "Knowledge is an encyclopedia" we mean first and foremost that the goal of the project is to create a source of all human knowledge not just a social networking site but a serious project. By Knowledge has a neutral point of view we mean that the goal of our articles should be that they be neutral and not advocate a certain position. By "free content" we mean that all work done here can be used elsewhere (which of course we can see from the various other sites on the net which copy our pages). The code of conduct attempts to establish an atmosphere where editors can edit without being harassed by other users and is essential to keeping this place active. I think it is perhaps the most relevant to an administrator as they are expected to keep the atmosphere free of such tensions. The ignore all rules pillar is essentially with the purpose to tell new users that they are free to mess up and that they won't be penalized for it. It is fundamental, of course, because if we expected perfection this project would be a failure.--
481:
user carefully looks over the external links and removes it. I don't think there is an easy answer to the question of how to bring it down, perhaps a bot could do it but then questions would arise over what would be considered spam. Ultimately I agree it is a serious problem as it brings down the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole by tarnishing the image of a serious project we are trying to create. With regards to "myspace, youtube, blogspot, etc..." being linked in articles, I am typically against it (though, in some cases youtube and myspace may be acceptable). In particular I am against blogs being linked because what usually happens is that someone writes or finds a personal blog about some politician they don't like and then link it up to the politicians article. It is essentially a violation of
369:
duel with another admin. Much like edit warring, it can leave a confusing block log on user's block log page which is completely unfair to the user (for instance, a user with an extensive block log due to a dispute between two administrators might be taken less seriously by other posters because of it despite the fact that such an incident would be completely out of his control). Furthermore, it creates a situation were some trouble users could try and game the system by pitting one admin against another, which is always a bad thing. The best way to avoid it is simply to not do it. If there is a dispute try and involve other admins to get outside opinions by posting the incident on
1991:) I'm also concerned about the self-nom following a previous failed RfA, and that Jersey Devil's Wiki participation has dropped way off in the last four months. His answer to optional question 4 above is not convincing; Jersey Devil does not convince me he is an advocate for NPOV, and neutrality is badly needed on many Latin American articles. I'm also curious about why he hasn't answered the other optional questions.
2263:- There's just lots of little things I don't really find comforting about this user. A bit of history of jumping the gun on some AfD's (some of that was involving Striver, but some of it wasn't -- like Exploding animals). Didn't really like some of his comments in the Seabhcan decision, and I just don't have the whole "yeah, this person would be good" feeling. --
202:. From my own experience as a user it can be quite disappointing when one needs to report another user whom is being abusive to others and not being able to get a response from an administrator. While I admit that the system has vastly improved since early 2006, it still needs to be a bit more responsive to users' complaints. I'd also put in some work on the
1304:; the bad news remains—he proudly displays that article on his userpage, and is one of the main contributors, and it's biased. Since he's proud of his contributions, I wonder if he considers it a representation of wiki NPOV? Considering his is a self-nom following a sharp decline in edits, I'm wondering if Jersey Devil would offer to add his name to
543:
the article anyway which leads to an eventual afd process thereby making the process of determining whether an article should be on
Knowledge needlessly longer and 4) I personally believe that community consensus should be standard for all articles which do not clearly fit the speedy deletion criteria.--
462:. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Knowledge, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are
2250:
I do not know much about him personally, may the reason is that he is inactive recently. I am only opposing him because
Striver above post rises concerns to me. I will vote support if the user actively contribute and try again later after sometimes. Furthermore, I might also change my stand if he can
2008:
Switching to Stong oppose per auburnpilot's diff. Wow. I, too, had a recent bite-ish incident with Jersey Devil, leading me to question his temperment, but decided it best not to be thin-skinned; viewed in light of auburnpilot's diff and the one given by
Inshanee in the older RfA, perhaps it wasn't
480:
Spam is a bad problem. What will typically happen is that an IP will add a spam link in the external links section of an article, the next contributing user won't notice and make a contribution (thereby making that contribution the one seen on someone's watchlist) and thus no one will notice until a
368:
Conflicts between administrators is bound to happen, it is natural to have disagreements on how certain incidents should be treated. It is another thing altogether however to let that disagreement jump into a dispute which involves administrators incorrectly using their admin powers to try and win a
1872:
vis-à-vis the Chavez revert in the same fashion as JD; I don't, FWIW, find anything particularly objectionable in the
Natalie Holloway edit inasmuch as such edit, even as serves no constructive encyclopedic purpose, has no disruptive tendency—but I don't think any to evidence some flaw the presence
1709:
Dude, not to make a mountain of a molehill (coz I know you to be a very good admin/contributor), but would you please not use "not admin material" as a way to describe your concern. I mean, what does it mean to say that when Jimbo et al. have always said "adminship is no big deal" - it doesn't tell
591:
and other forms of disruption. I'd say that it is inappropriate for an administrator to block a user to "win" in a content dispute on a page or for an administrator to block a user with whom he has had in the past strong personal disputes (unless the incident is very clear vandalism or some kind of
542:
process was created and I believe that it has been for the most part unsuccessful because 1) they are rarely used in comparison to speedy deletes and afds, 2) they rely on individual user's interpreting what "uncontroversial deletion candidates" means, 3) most prod tags are removed by the author of
537:
and that we should try to uphold the policies that we do have as much as possible and try very little to go outside of them (unless there are some kind of unforeseen extreme circumstances not covered by policy and guidelines). I will say this however which is also related to your question regarding
2464:- I do think that JerseyDevil is a strong candidate, and the oppose votes don't really sway me, but I am a bit concerned about the decline in recent activity. I know that life happens sometimes, but weeks and weeks without significant presence might suggest that this nomination is not well-timed.-
1009:
per my quality interactions with Jersey Devil. Regarding Jersey's level of activity since
November, my best guess is, knowing Jersey's penchant for politics, Jersey trailed off a bit because the U.S. midterm elections ended. I suspect Jersey's edit total will pick back up again as other elections
403:
This of course depends on the situation. According to current policy if there is strong enough community consensus to ban a user who's "exhausted the communities patience" it can be done by the request of the community but I have found this rarely to be the case. Instead members are usually banned
2142:
I'm surprised that someone familiar with Latin
American politics considers the info you deleted on Chavez to be "controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable)" - it's straightforward info about a public figure well known to people involved in Latin American politics, and easy to
2096:
article, just look at that actual article and my actual contributions to it. They involve adding external links, creating a short table for the
Advisory Committee, creating the infobox and generally adding fact-based content to the article. The following are diffs of all my edits to that article,
1901:
My reason is specific to me and don't want it to influence others. I have had a few interaction with this user. My reason for oppose is that when I nominated someone else for adminship and he accepted, instead of me or that person, Jeresy added the RfA and voted oppose for him. I just didn't feel
1274:
POV issues surrounding Jersey's work on Latin
American subjects and no serious evidence has been or will be provided. Any accusations of pro-Hugo Chavez edits by Jersey below (based on his removal of one un-sourced edit 18 months ago) should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Sandy simply has a
2233:
for his summer 2006 rampage on Islam related articles, afd everything he found that was created by me, in total over 40 articles with a very low success rate of deleting, many people voting procedural keep and characterizing his behavior as a "crusade" or "war path". I would never trust him with
2068:
That comment was made in
September 2005 long before I understood anything about Knowledge. Of course it was completely wrong but I can not change a single random edit I did well over a year ago when I had probably less than 100 contributions. Also with regards to removing Hugo Chavez in the 9/11
1269:
Experienced and wise editor who should have been made an administrator long ago. Certainly one of the most neutral editors one would find on wikipedia despite the extraordinary comments by Sandy below. I think Sandy, who is normally one of my favourite editors, is way out of line here. There are
337:
Basically the five essential rules to Knowledge is that it is an encyclopedia, has a neutral point-of-view, is free content, has a code of conduct and does not have firm rules. They are introduced to all new users in the very first "Welcome" template they receive on their talk page. They are the
1561:
Ja, there were some issues. But overall I think your body of work allows me to trust your judgment. The anti-Striver "crusade" should have been understaken more circumspectly, but I can't fault you for submitting for deletion many articles entitled "Shia opinion of ", many of which qualified as
2143:
verify. Also, considering none of the other names on the list were cited, an unbiased edit would remove them all for the same BLP concern - I don't see citations on any of the names that remained after your edit. I hope you don't consider "someone else did it, too" as good editing policy.
1979:. POV is a problem in many of the articles dealing with Latin American topics; someone who doesn't closely follow Latin American politics might not know of certain politician's views, but anyone who follows Latin American politics as closely as Jersey Devil appears to should know that
291:
in which the consensus (with 24 votes in favor) was that the RFC was baseless. With that said, this conflict occurred a long time ago and I have been in very minimal contact with the user since. I also can not recall any other conflicts of such a nature in my time at
2105:
and Telesur" in particular for the use of "attacked" I should have used "criticized" instead and I changed the article just now to reflect that. But other than that I do not see any other justifiable criticisms of "bias" made by myself in that article.
2043:
which is totally unacceptable. Granted it was well over a year ago, but it is still displayed on the talk page and I can't look passed this type of comment. If the candidate had been more active, I may have been pushed back into neutral.
1233:. Although there have been NPOV arguements levied against you, the evidence they have given wasn't enough to convince me personally that you will be any problem with the tools that adminship will provide you, so I give you my support
1946:
To my knowledge, there is no policy prescribing who should list the RFA, and, in any case, that was a very minor issue; the RFA in question was doomed from the start. The basis for this oppose vote strikes me as rather spurious.
2329:
Jersey Devil has engaged in a lot of aggressive edit warring and POV-pushing, and I have no confidence that he wouldn't use admin tools (or the threat of using admin tools) to ensure that his POV dominates an article.
1902:
good that somebody other than me or that editor would add it. Jeresy could have waited for one day more to vote oppose. Just not nice, but he did not break any policy. BUT I am not qualified to say much about Jeresy. --
373:. But if an admin does wheel war constantly and doesn't stop at the request of other respectable admins then there is no other option but AbrCom. The incident that sticks out to me the most at the moment is the
278:
I was involved in one conflict in early 2006 with another user. I felt that the user was breaking with Knowledge policies at the time by removing afd templates, using false "rv vandalism" edit summaries, using
129:
in July 2006 which failed by a vote of 45/21/9. I think major issues brought up in that RFA, such as a failure to use edit summaries, are no longer major issues. Feel free to ask any questions, I'd be happy to
516:
gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not?
1704:
1341:
I'm glad to hear you'll be adding yourself to administrators open to recall should you be approved. Your comment above generates more concern, however; if you believe my reply to Zleitzen comparing me to a
2234:
admin tools. Btw, several of the articles that was deleted due to him was in fact undeleted later on since they simply went undedected given the total caos, one of this undeletions gave me a barnstar. --
1585:. Oppose votes do not seem to be based on substantive issues, or if they are these issues are not presented or explained adequately. I'll check back to see if more information presents itself. --
1710:
JD what he needs to do to improve. Its insulting - I know Tony Sidaway said that about me and I was pissed at him a lot, apart from having no idea where he got off to making that conclusion.
1718:
2420:
for now. Most of the oppose votes look spurious, but the "crusade" accusations strike me as worth considering. Can someone provide additional details on this? If not, I shall likely
592:
disruption that is obviously for the purpose of harming the encyclopedia). In such cases it is better to go to AN/I and ask another third party administrator to handle the situation.--
1983:
which he (inaccurately) deleted (without the courtesy of a {{cn}} tag) could have been verified with a one-second Google search (or at least should think to check before deleting).
1691:
1245:
This candidate has some serious weaknesses (see the Oppose section), but I'm a fan of his administrative specialties (AfD, AIN and such) and I think he can be trusted with them.
1292:-related topics to be NPOV, reflecting a minute amount of what the world now sees from daily reliable sources makes me some sort of radical; you're sounding like someone who has
2078:"Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Knowledge articles"
1328:
I've always said that I am in favor of making the recall process mandatory for all administrators. So clearly I'd put myself in that category. Also, please try and maintain a
374:
533:
covers alot of issues that come up and at the moment I could not conceive of many issues under which I would speedy delete a page outside of these guidelines. I believe that
2277:
165:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
82:) - I have been an editor on Knowledge since May 2005 but began editing strongly since December 2005. I decided to try for a second RFA after a suggestion to do so by
2187:
2155:
2021:
1652:
1649:
1358:
1336:
420:
381:
296:
272:
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?
260:
149:
2137:
947:
686:
1430:
1320:
973:
1648:
per all above. Experienced user, very high editcount, POV issues not especially significant as far as I can see. Also shouldn't be judged on their early history.
1537:
1261:
2255:
1865:
1856:
1577:
1376:
789:
2456:
2225:
2092:
as supposed members which I removed (and I doubt that in these cases I would have been expected to put up a citation needed tag). With regards to "bias" in the
2003:
1923:
1640:
1158:
916:
892:
596:
547:
2060:
1551:
1451:
1408:
1237:
970:
859:
722:
467:
2297:
1941:
1932:
1678:
1556:
1346:
to be uncivil, your block button is going to be more active than I'm comfortable with. Al contrario, I didn't think his comments about me were appropriate.
1249:
1175:
1010:
approach and as Jersey finds new projects to work on. But it's just an edit count, anyway, which says nothing about the quality of Jersey's contributions. ·
2381:
2346:
2334:
2285:
1780:
1521:
1463:
1213:
1189:
2369:
1877:
1816:
1802:
1482:
1283:
1133:
1038:
961:
838:
826:
714:
2495:
2440:
2321:
2242:
1963:
1954:
1844:
1734:
1624:
1494:
1478:
1391:
1201:
1143:
1112:
1083:
1022:
737:
674:
619:
2426:
1889:
1868:, and I support here because that belief abides. I am troubled by two or three of the diffs adduced below—I'm not, for instance, certain that I construe
1589:
1225:
1068:
1001:
880:
801:
1601:
1051:
989:
761:
653:
567:
2480:
2309:
1746:
719:
2401:
1546:
1246:
2080:
so the thought of putting up a citation needed tag is completely without merit. I also remind you that the user who created this list also put down
117:-related articles which I intend to increase as my Mathematics education increases. On non-content aspects of Knowledge I have been quite active on
2331:
446:
has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in
2167:
on your userpage, and are one of its main contributors. Do you consider it a good example of Wiki NPOV? Do you agree that POV can be created by
1473:
769:- probably would vote neutral because nom was placed at the bottom of the page at first, but I can still trust this user, so therefore support.
1491:
1293:
1138:
493:
342:
210:
134:
2097:
perhaps the only thing that could be labeled to seem like bias is when I put that "Mack later attacked a February 2006 agreement between the
470:
stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at
126:
2397:
1960:
1938:
1903:
985:
article, which was the target fr a lot of attacks at the moment. This user is taking the encyclopadia issue seriously and can be trusted.
1928:
I remember an RfA which was listed by an oppose voter before the candidate had even answered the questions completely. Was it this one ?
1696:
Very low level of activity since November 2006 + lack of participation in the process + the user does not strike me as admin material. —
969:. Well-established user, good range of participation, sensible and mature answers to questions - I see no problem with giving the tools.
288:
2513:
2411:
2306:
2032:
1906:
1697:
1684:
521:
925:. Jersey Devil gives no indication that he'll explode the 'Pedia if we hand over the Big Red Admin Buttons, so let's hand them over.
846:
A fine and trustworthy editor. I have come across this user's contributions quite regularly, and they are always of a high quality.
1912:
1172:
939:
463:
185:
1305:
513:
199:
2448:, the user has a good knowledge about the project but recent declination in the contributions does not seem favourable to me.
1683:
I changed my mind after further review. Is competent. I have faced it this user before, and he has been fairly reasonable. —
1425:
784:
244:
article (the current Peruvian President) which I have helped keep up-to-date, covering what for me are local issues with the
699:
203:
615:
2219:
79:
856:
2040:
563:? What are some examples of times when it is appropriate or inappropriate for an administrator to block a user? --
237:
87:
33:
17:
2090:
2084:
2070:
1515:
405:
177:
1959:
Please stay civil Beit Or. I don't remember I asked for some editoral review of the basis for my oppose vote. --
1296:
to choose Castro's successor. The good news is that shining the light on the trend has now led Jersey Devil to
287:
to other users in order to gain support in afds. At this point I should also disclose that the user launched an
222:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1980:
1835:
1388:
1332:
tone when talking to other members. There is simply no reason to make comments like those above. Thank you.--
981:. I ran into this user when the Peruvian presidential elections was going on and he kept an wake eye on the
249:
1754:
1064:
316:
236:. In particular what I enjoyed about writing that article is that most of the writing was done during the
2069:
Truth Movement article, I will say that I was correct in doing so. I was not the only one to do so either
2407:
1094:
2161:
2131:
1297:
2494:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2473:
588:
173:
98:
2129:
2127:
2125:
2123:
2121:
2119:
2117:
2115:
2113:
2111:
2109:
2107:
1420:
1183:. Ntohing super-awesome about this candidate, but no reason to think he'll abuse his powers either.--
867:
Great contribs, tons of edits, a lot of which are Wiki edits, well-written answers...bust out a mop.
1535:
181:
1572:
777:
471:
450:, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are
2214:
2183:
2151:
2017:
1999:
1636:
1354:
1316:
328:
73:
2039:
to some extent in regards to NPOV issues. The issue that pushed me from neutral to oppose was
2055:
1445:
1404:
851:
683:
2396:
per NPOV concerns raised by SandyGeorgia, good candidate but cannot support at this time. --
2377:
per Striver and Hyperbole. Assumes bad faith and quick to delete articles based on own POV.
1308:
should he be approved? That would decrease my concern about the slant in his edit history.
1929:
1417:
1168:
538:
articles which seem to be between that gray line of speedy deletion and afd. For those the
413:
47:
1864:
I supported the previous RfA in view of my belief that one could reasonably conclude that
8:
1792:
1774:
1530:
1509:
1258:
1122:
409:
2365:
2252:
1853:
1800:
1711:
1567:
1373:
1151:
1131:
1035:
821:
770:
708:
2449:
2239:
2209:
2200:
2176:
2144:
2134:
2036:
2035:
that participation has been considerably lacking in recent months. I also agree with
2010:
1992:
1951:
1920:
1831:
1632:
1618:
1563:
1385:
1347:
1333:
1309:
1141:
1104:
1080:
1016:
901:
889:
727:
668:
611:
593:
544:
490:
447:
417:
378:
339:
293:
257:
207:
146:
131:
69:
1030:. Pleasant interaction experience, and selfnom means respect (=extra points) to me.
2270:
2046:
1440:
1400:
1234:
874:
847:
576:
412:
created during a past AbrCom decision (or from what I have found to be more rare a
310:
1566:. I don't see this translating it into abusing administrative tools. I support. -
2294:
1916:
1661:
1329:
755:
1545:
Nothing but positive interactions with Jersey Devil. Should be a good admin. --
1459:
I'm not without concerns, but I think on the whole that he will do a good job. —
240:
and I think it helped inform many people. I am also pleased with my work on the
2476:
2378:
2343:
2265:
2204:
1769:
1503:
1460:
1210:
1184:
982:
539:
451:
443:
430:
370:
284:
253:
229:
110:
1988:
1471:
fine with NPOV, does good work in holding unencyclopedic material to account.
1289:
2507:
2488:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2360:
2073:
1915:
is the RFA which the above user is referring to. And thank you Aminz for the
1874:
1869:
1839:
1811:
1797:
1789:
1280:
1127:
1031:
956:
934:
835:
811:
702:
584:
580:
534:
530:
482:
394:
280:
195:
122:
118:
102:
83:
1987:- to which Jersey Devil contributes significantly - is unbalanced (also pro-
2437:
2318:
2235:
1948:
1826:
1731:
1611:
1279:
blush ;) Next we'll be haranguing MONGO for his clear Anti-American bias!--
1198:
1099:
1077:
1011:
732:
663:
560:
486:
459:
455:
355:
233:
1866:
the net effect on the project of Jersey's being a sysop should be positive
583:(or gaming the 3rr policy), inappropriate usernames, sockpuppet accounts,
2423:
2087:
1886:
1586:
1222:
1060:
998:
869:
798:
306:
245:
241:
114:
94:
888:- Trustworthy, serious editor; brings to the project expertise we need.
2102:
1598:
1048:
986:
746:
650:
564:
518:
503:
106:
59:
1372:
Serious editor who has shown a willingness to improve since last RfA.
955:
as I see nothing which indicates Jersey Devil would abuse the bit. ···
2498:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
2465:
2081:
1502:
All around a good candidate. I think he will do fine with the tools.
1288:
Goodness, Zleitzen, I hardly think that expecting Wiki's articles on
359:
1730:
Liked the answers and trust him not to use tools inappropriately. --
649:
I have complete confidence that Jersey Devil will be a fine admin.--
194:
I believe I would spend most of my time as an Administrator closing
1743:
1197:. Very good editor. Probably will be an excellent administrator. --
929:
377:
which resulted in de-adminship partially fueled by wheel warring.--
172:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
93:-related articles where I have for about a year now maintained the
1885:
Excellent candidate, from personal experience working with him. --
2164:
2093:
1984:
1301:
1257:
This is a great candidate and I think he would be a fine admin.
834:
I like what I've seen from JD, and have no problems supporting.
1821:
Since I have confidence that JD won't abuse the powers, I must
1343:
1276:
408:
following an AbrCom case or 2) by an administrator enforcing a
1120:
An excellent admin candidate. I see no major problems here. --
2098:
1275:
point of view on Latin America so forthright it could make a
141:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
90:
62:
113:
related articles. I have also made small contributions to
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2293:
per Striver. Could not trust him with delete button.
1873:
of which should render JD ill-suited for adminship.
198:
debates. I would also try to keep a close eye on the
703:
228:
Yes, in particular I am pleased with my work on the
1399:. I have often seen this editor doing good work. -
466:stats on which domains are being added daily, and
1609:per answer to Q1. CfD is backlogged majorly ;) --
2505:
2436:for now, based on some of the edits given above
1810:No reason to believe user will abuse the tools.
101:. I've also worked on other articles related to
630:Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
125:. I should also disclose that I have had one
1911:Just so that others watching this RFA know,
1529:Excellent user; would use the tools well. --
362:and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
2160:I'm glad you reversed one of your POV edits
797:again, this is a good admin candidate. --
206:, who's backlog needs serious attention.--
812:
429:Optional question (or questions) from ——
232:article which has since been tagged as a
485:a soapbox not to mention that it is an
89:On content-related work I am active on
14:
2506:
1306:Category:Administrators open to recall
1047:as on last RfA. Excellent candidate.
514:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion
813:
1438:- He looks to be a trusworthy admin.
682:improved all round since last time.
23:
2050:
2047:
1209:Excellent editor. Deserves tools.
24:
2525:
2514:Successful requests for adminship
2278:
2266:
2251:address Striver concerns. :) ---
248:article, my contributions to the
1298:reverse one of his own POV edits
957:
661:- can't see a reason to oppose.
559:For what cause(s) may a user be
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
2163:—that's progress. You display
1662:
1105:
1100:
1095:
902:
178:Category:Administrative backlog
2271:
2264:
1712:
1152:
778:
772:
618:. For the edit count, see the
145:I accept my self-nomination.--
13:
1:
2450:
2354:per striver and auburnpilot.
1755:
1698:
1685:
1668:
1619:
1531:
1504:
875:
733:
728:
2481:06:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2457:21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2441:00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2427:18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2412:07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2382:00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2370:15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2347:01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2335:23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2322:22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2310:06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2298:11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2286:10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2256:11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2243:00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2226:21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2188:23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2156:22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2138:22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2061:19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2022:20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2004:03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1964:01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1955:22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1942:07:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1933:06:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1924:06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1907:06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1890:06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1878:06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1857:05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1845:05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1817:03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1803:03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1781:00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1761:00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1747:19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1744:Torturous Devastating Cudgel
1735:19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1719:19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1705:16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1692:14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1679:13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1672:
1653:10:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1641:05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1625:02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1612:
1602:01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1590:17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1578:12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1557:06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1538:03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1522:00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1516:
1510:
1495:00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1483:23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1464:19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1452:03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1431:15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1409:12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1392:10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1377:05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1359:01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1337:00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1321:23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1284:04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1262:03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1250:03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1238:16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1226:05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1214:03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1202:01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1190:21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1176:19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1159:17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1144:05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1134:04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1113:22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1084:22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1069:21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1052:21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1039:19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1023:19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1002:19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
990:18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
974:17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
962:16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
948:16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
917:14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
893:14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
881:13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
870:
860:13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
839:13:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
827:13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
802:13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
790:12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
762:12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
738:10:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
723:09:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
715:09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
709:
687:08:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
675:07:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
654:06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
597:01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
568:18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
548:01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
522:18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
494:00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
421:04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
382:03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
343:01:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
331:and why are they important?
297:06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
261:06:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
211:05:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
186:administrators' reading list
150:06:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
135:06:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7:
2466:
614:'s edit summary usage with
200:Administrators' Noticeboard
161:Questions for the candidate
10:
2530:
250:Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
238:2006 Presidential Election
180:, and read the page about
174:Category:Knowledge backlog
2207:is important for admins.
393:Who has the authority to
329:five pillars of Knowledge
204:Categories for discussion
2491:Please do not modify it.
502:Optional questions from
305:Optional questions from
58:(67/14/4); Ended 05:21,
1919:in your oppose vote. --
39:Please do not modify it
2422:switch to support. --
694:I believe the term is
254:Pacifica Radio Network
111:Pacifica Radio Network
2317:per AuburnPilot diff-
1788:, plain and simple.
900:I see no problems. ←
701:. No qualms from me.
406:Arbitration Committee
196:Articles for Deletion
123:Request for Adminship
119:Articles for Deletion
34:request for adminship
2033:Nearly Headless Nick
1937:I don't think so. --
1700:Nearly Headless Nick
1687:Nearly Headless Nick
1173:(Editor review two!)
1091:per the nomination.
535:process is important
1650:Walton monarchist89
1490:Fine candidate. --
1059:good candidate.--
785:(my Editor Review)
2479:
2406:
2283:
2058:
1843:
1639:
1576:
1573:banana receptacle
1555:
1520:
1429:
1166:great candidate!
919:
910:
825:
788:
787:
760:
713:
581:excessive reverts
487:unreliable source
404:either by 1) the
375:Tony Sidaway RfAb
2521:
2493:
2472:
2470:
2454:
2404:
2284:
2282:
2280:
2275:
2268:
2222:
2217:
2212:
2180:
2148:
2056:
2052:
2049:
2014:
1996:
1829:
1814:
1795:
1779:
1759:
1716:
1702:
1689:
1676:
1670:
1666:
1635:
1621:
1614:
1597:a fine editor.--
1570:
1549:
1533:
1518:
1512:
1508:
1506:
1448:
1443:
1423:
1351:
1313:
1294:a pony in a race
1187:
1156:
1130:
1125:
1107:
1102:
1097:
959:
946:
942:
937:
932:
928:
915:
913:
908:
877:
872:
858:
854:
823:
820:
816:
815:
783:
782:
780:
774:
758:
754:
749:
735:
730:
711:
707:
705:
684:The Rambling Man
671:
666:
605:General comments
585:personal threats
285:sending messages
281:personal attacks
99:Peru Wikiproject
41:
2529:
2528:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2496:this nomination
2489:
2368:
2220:
2215:
2210:
2178:
2146:
2101:-based network
2012:
1994:
1812:
1793:
1768:
1637:(Упражнение В!)
1623:
1446:
1441:
1349:
1311:
1185:
1123:
1121:
1067:
944:
940:
935:
930:
926:
852:
850:
822:
756:
747:
669:
664:
472:this handy page
448:#wikipedia-spam
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2527:
2517:
2516:
2501:
2500:
2484:
2483:
2459:
2443:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2385:
2384:
2372:
2364:
2349:
2337:
2324:
2312:
2300:
2288:
2258:
2245:
2228:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2171:as well as by
2158:
2026:
2025:
2024:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1926:
1893:
1892:
1880:
1859:
1847:
1819:
1805:
1783:
1762:
1749:
1737:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1681:
1655:
1643:
1627:
1617:
1604:
1592:
1580:
1559:
1540:
1532:Captain Wikify
1524:
1497:
1485:
1469:Strong support
1466:
1454:
1433:
1411:
1394:
1379:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1264:
1255:Strong Support
1252:
1240:
1228:
1216:
1204:
1192:
1178:
1161:
1146:
1136:
1115:
1086:
1071:
1063:
1054:
1042:
1025:
1004:
992:
983:Ollanta Humala
976:
964:
950:
920:
895:
883:
862:
841:
829:
804:
795:Strong Support
792:
764:
740:
725:
717:
689:
677:
656:
641:
640:
627:
626:
625:
623:
616:mathbot's tool
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
553:
552:
551:
550:
499:
498:
497:
496:
426:
425:
424:
423:
387:
386:
385:
384:
348:
347:
346:
345:
302:
301:
300:
299:
289:RFC against me
266:
265:
264:
263:
230:Ollanta Humala
216:
215:
214:
213:
182:administrators
163:
162:
157:
155:
154:
153:
152:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2526:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2509:
2499:
2497:
2492:
2486:
2485:
2482:
2478:
2475:
2471:
2469:
2463:
2460:
2458:
2455:
2453:
2447:
2444:
2442:
2439:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2425:
2421:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2409:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2383:
2380:
2376:
2375:Strong oppose
2373:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2357:
2353:
2350:
2348:
2345:
2342:per above. --
2341:
2340:Strong oppose
2338:
2336:
2333:
2328:
2327:Strong oppose
2325:
2323:
2320:
2316:
2315:Strong oppose
2313:
2311:
2308:
2304:
2301:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2291:Strong oppose
2289:
2287:
2281:
2276:
2274:
2269:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2249:
2246:
2244:
2241:
2237:
2232:
2231:Strong Oppose
2229:
2227:
2224:
2223:
2218:
2213:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2195:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2159:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2136:
2132:
2130:
2128:
2126:
2124:
2122:
2120:
2118:
2116:
2114:
2112:
2110:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2095:
2091:
2089:
2085:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2059:
2054:
2053:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2031:I agree with
2030:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1977:Strong Oppose
1975:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1953:
1950:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1931:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1905:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1881:
1879:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1818:
1815:
1809:
1806:
1804:
1801:
1799:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1758:
1753:
1750:
1748:
1745:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1682:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1671:
1665:
1659:
1656:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1631:
1628:
1626:
1622:
1616:
1615:
1608:
1605:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1568:Tragic Baboon
1565:
1560:
1558:
1553:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1519:
1513:
1507:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1470:
1467:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1455:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1427:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1380:
1378:
1375:
1374:Pascal.Tesson
1371:
1368:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1345:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1155:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:j e r s y k o
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
996:
993:
991:
988:
984:
980:
977:
975:
972:
968:
965:
963:
960:
954:
951:
949:
943:
938:
933:
924:
921:
918:
914:
912:
907:
906:
899:
896:
894:
891:
887:
884:
882:
879:
878:
873:
866:
863:
861:
857:
855:
849:
845:
842:
840:
837:
833:
830:
828:
824:
818:
817:
808:
807:Voto en favor
805:
803:
800:
796:
793:
791:
786:
781:
776:
775:
768:
765:
763:
759:
753:
750:
744:
741:
739:
736:
731:
726:
724:
721:
718:
716:
712:
706:
700:
698:as member ;)
697:
693:
690:
688:
685:
681:
678:
676:
673:
672:
667:
660:
657:
655:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
639:
638:
637:
636:
632:
631:
624:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
604:
603:
598:
595:
590:
589:legal threats
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
570:
569:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
549:
546:
541:
536:
532:
529:I think that
528:
525:
524:
523:
520:
515:
512:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
495:
492:
488:
484:
479:
476:
475:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
442:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
433:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
402:
399:
398:
396:
392:
389:
388:
383:
380:
376:
372:
367:
364:
363:
361:
357:
356:wheel warring
353:
350:
349:
344:
341:
336:
333:
332:
330:
327:What are the
326:
323:
322:
321:
320:
318:
315:
312:
308:
298:
295:
290:
286:
282:
277:
274:
273:
271:
268:
267:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
223:
221:
218:
217:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
167:
166:
160:
159:
158:
151:
148:
144:
143:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:Latin America
100:
96:
92:
88:
85:
84:User:Zleitzen
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
66:
64:
61:
56:
50:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2490:
2487:
2467:
2461:
2451:
2445:
2433:
2417:
2416:
2393:
2387:
2386:
2374:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2339:
2326:
2314:
2302:
2290:
2272:
2260:
2247:
2230:
2208:
2203:. Following
2201:SandyGeorgia
2196:
2172:
2168:
2135:Jersey Devil
2077:
2076:states that
2065:
2045:
2041:this comment
2037:SandyGeorgia
2028:
1981:this content
1976:
1921:Jersey Devil
1895:
1894:
1882:
1861:
1849:
1822:
1807:
1785:
1775:
1770:
1764:
1756:
1751:
1739:
1727:
1714:Rama's arrow
1713:
1699:
1686:
1673:
1667:
1663:
1657:
1645:
1633:RyanGerbil10
1629:
1610:
1606:
1594:
1582:
1542:
1526:
1499:
1487:
1479:bananabucket
1472:
1468:
1456:
1439:
1435:
1413:
1396:
1381:
1369:
1334:Jersey Devil
1325:
1271:
1266:
1254:
1242:
1230:
1218:
1206:
1194:
1180:
1167:
1163:
1154:Rama's arrow
1153:
1148:
1117:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1076:per Trebor.
1073:
1056:
1044:
1027:
1017:
1012:
1006:
994:
978:
966:
952:
922:
911:
904:
903:
897:
890:Tom Harrison
885:
868:
864:
843:
831:
810:
806:
794:
771:
767:Weak Support
766:
751:
742:
695:
691:
679:
662:
658:
643:
642:
634:
633:
629:
628:
612:Jersey Devil
594:Jersey Devil
572:
556:
545:Jersey Devil
526:
510:
501:
500:
491:Jersey Devil
477:
468:Heligoland's
440:
431:
428:
427:
418:Jersey Devil
400:
390:
379:Jersey Devil
365:
351:
340:Jersey Devil
334:
324:
313:
304:
303:
294:Jersey Devil
292:Knowledge.--
275:
269:
258:Jersey Devil
234:Good Article
225:
219:
208:Jersey Devil
191:
169:
164:
156:
147:Jersey Devil
140:
132:Jersey Devil
127:previous RFA
76:
70:Jersey Devil
68:
57:
54:
53:
49:Jersey Devil
48:
38:
30:
28:
2305:per above.
2248:Weak Oppose
2088:Howard Dean
1989:Hugo Chávez
1757:NoSeptember
1564:WP:POVFORKs
1401:Will Beback
1235:Galactor213
848:Chairman S.
720:Terence Ong
246:Cory Booker
242:Alan Garcia
121:as well as
115:Mathematics
105:as well as
95:Peru Portal
2295:Grace Note
2211:S h a r k
2103:al-Jazeera
1742:n' stuff.
1247:YechielMan
1169:Yuser31415
635:Discussion
504:User:BigDT
414:Mentorship
256:article.--
252:, and the
107:New Jersey
60:2 February
31:successful
2379:Khodavand
2344:Mardavich
2332:Hyperbole
2173:comission
2082:Lou Dobbs
2009:just me.
1505:JungleCat
1461:Doug Bell
1211:Alex43223
1186:Wizardman
620:talk page
577:vandalism
410:Probation
130:answer.--
2508:Category
2408:contribs
2361:Nielswik
2216:f a c e
2169:omission
1917:civility
1813:IronDuke
1630:Support.
1620:(o rly?)
1474:Blnguyen
1457:Support.
1426:Contribs
1421:MacInnis
1281:Zleitzen
1243:Support.
1032:Bishonen
836:Thε Halo
704:James086
464:Veinor's
360:bad idea
317:contribs
184:and the
97:and the
80:contribs
2474:*Edits*
2462:Neutral
2446:Neutral
2438:Johnbod
2434:Neutral
2418:Neutral
2394:Neutral
2388:Neutral
2319:Cindery
2236:Striver
2205:WP:BITE
2179:Georgia
2165:teleSUR
2147:Georgia
2094:teleSUR
2066:Comment
2013:Georgia
1995:Georgia
1985:teleSUR
1883:Support
1862:Support
1850:Support
1823:Support
1808:Support
1786:Support
1765:Support
1752:Support
1740:Support
1732:Dweller
1728:Support
1658:Support
1646:Support
1613:Majorly
1607:Support
1595:Support
1583:Support
1543:Support
1527:Support
1500:Support
1492:Tbeatty
1488:Support
1436:Support
1414:Support
1397:Support
1382:Support
1370:Support
1350:Georgia
1326:Comment
1312:Georgia
1302:teleSUR
1270:simply
1267:Support
1231:Support
1223:Michael
1219:Support
1207:Support
1199:Carioca
1195:Support
1181:Support
1164:Support
1149:Support
1139:Jaranda
1128:iva1979
1118:Support
1089:Support
1074:Support
1057:Support
1045:Support
1028:Support
1007:Support
995:Support
979:Support
967:Support
953:Support
923:Support
898:Support
886:Support
865:Support
844:Support
832:Support
779:phantom
743:Support
692:Support
680:Support
665:Jorcoga
659:Support
644:Support
561:blocked
540:WP:PROD
452:WP:SPAM
397:users?
371:WP:AN/I
354:Why is
2477:*Talk*
2424:SCZenz
2366:(talk)
2352:Oppose
2303:Oppose
2261:Oppose
2221:2 1 7
2197:Oppose
2074:WP:BLP
2048:auburn
2029:Oppose
1930:Tintin
1896:Oppose
1887:Gabbec
1776:scribe
1587:SCZenz
1517:Oohhh!
1511:Shiny!
1418:Trevor
1344:contra
1290:Chávez
1277:Contra
1061:danntm
999:Rudjek
971:Trebor
814:Szvest
799:rogerd
773:Insane
531:WP:CSD
483:WP:NOT
458:, and
307:Malber
2452:Shyam
2398:Arnzy
2356:Peace
2177:Sandy
2145:Sandy
2099:Qatar
2051:pilot
2011:Sandy
1993:Sandy
1961:Aminz
1939:Aminz
1904:Aminz
1854:D-Boy
1825:. ---
1599:Aldux
1348:Sandy
1330:civil
1310:Sandy
1259:Chico
1049:Xoloz
987:MoRsE
748:Proto
670:Yell!
651:MONGO
565:BigDT
519:BigDT
460:WP:RS
456:WP:EL
432:Eagle
65:(UTC)
55:Final
16:<
2468:Dmz5
2402:talk
2358:. --
2279:girl
2267:Elar
2240:talk
2199:per
2184:Talk
2152:Talk
2086:and
2072:and
2057:talk
2018:Talk
2000:Talk
1949:Beit
1913:this
1664:Buck
1552:talk
1547:Aude
1442:Baka
1389:ceNT
1355:Talk
1317:Talk
1078:Beit
1036:talk
1018:talk
853:Talk
710:Talk
696:sang
610:See
575:For
444:Spam
416:).--
311:talk
283:and
176:and
109:and
91:Peru
74:talk
63:2007
2307:1ne
2253:ALM
2175:?
2133:.--
1875:Joe
1870:BLP
1840:WRE
1827:J.S
1790:Tom
1771:WJB
1674:ofg
1669:ets
1660:.
1447:man
1386:Pea
1300:to
1106:¿п?
1101:.D.
958:日本穣
909:NAS
876:fon
871:Gan
809:--
745:.
729:dvd
489:.--
434:101
395:ban
2510::
2410:)
2330:--
2238:-
2186:)
2154:)
2020:)
2002:)
1952:Or
1852:--
1767:.
1481:)
1416:-
1407:·
1403:·
1384:–
1357:)
1319:)
1272:no
1221:.
1111:§
1081:Or
1034:|
1021:·
997:--
819:-
752:::
734:rw
587:,
579:,
573:A:
557:9.
527:A:
517:--
511:8.
478:A:
474:.
454:,
441:7.
401:A:
391:6.
366:A:
358:a
352:5.
335:A:
325:4.
276:A:
270:3.
226:A:
220:2.
192:A:
188:.
170:1.
86:.
36:.
2405:•
2400:(
2273:a
2182:(
2150:(
2016:(
1998:(
1842:)
1838:/
1836:C
1834:/
1832:T
1830:(
1798:r
1794:e
1575:)
1571:(
1554:)
1550:(
1514:/
1477:(
1428:)
1424:(
1405:†
1353:(
1315:(
1124:S
1096:S
1065:C
1041:.
945:♠
941:C
936:M
931:P
927:♠
905:A
757:►
622:.
319:)
314:·
309:(
77:·
72:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.