Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Significa liberdade

7849:

edit summaries and explanations hasn't helped, and neither has the fact that, when pressed, your major explanation has been that you acted too fast or that you didn't look at things such as page history, the rules, or the text you're adding. When you're an admin, you're going to have to make a lot of judgements that the rest of use can't see. You cannot move to quickly. You have to be slow, methodical, and explain yourself well. You have to be willing to admit- not just that you could have made better choices- but that you made the wrong one, and explain what you're going to do to fix it. You're probably aware by now that I just DR-ed a picture you uploaded last year on Commons, because you claimed it was CC-BY-SA-4.0 when it's looking to be for non-commercial use only. (And I think I know why you made that mistke- because somebody told you that the photos were creative commons-licensed and you forgot to check which creative commons license) And you're aware that you have a rocky history with copyright - most users don't take three warnings telling them they can't copy-paste material into Knowledge to realise that they can't copy-paste material into Knowledge, but now that you have, you know that you needed to be extra vigilant in areas you're working in that you don't fully understand.

8080:? Oh, please. Q3 has been a standard question since the Jurassic era, and we have had many, many successful candidates who answered it with specifics. Is there really no such thing as a middle ground, between a troll and being brought with good reason to ANI? Yes, of course there are times when it's best to ignore trolls, and it's hardly a personal attack on a troll to link to an example of when you ignored them. Are you all really so inexperienced in deescalation? Can't you think of times when you were working on content, and some editors wanted to do "A", while others wanted to do "B", and they were at odds, and then you suggested "C" which satisfied both sides and got consensus? Can't you think of times when you reverted someone, over something more substantive than trollish vandalism, and they were unhappy about it but you smoothed things over? As far as I'm concerned, citing specific examples is a better way to demonstrate accomplishments, than is talking in generalities. -- 7920:

disagreements are not conflicts. I have always found this question odd as I would expect editors that are level headed enough to be trusted as an admin to be able to avoid a disagreements becoming conflicts, but maybe the problem people are seeing this question mean different things? To me disagreements are discussions and if one side cannot persuade the other we bring in others to gain a consensus, conflicts are when things start to degrade, points are repeated, civilly breaks down and the discussion diverges from reaching any agreement. However, if some are thinking conflicts means disagreements then surely most have had numerous mundane disagreements. I have always read Q3 as basically have you lost your cool before and learnt from it, and I would really hope that many who come to RfA have not. Although I agree that it is difficult to tell someone who has not got into any notable conflicts from someone who is giving the politicians answer.

755:! First, I want to recognize that I initially misread your question and was thinking of a situation in which two editors had created the same article–one in mainspace and one in draftspace. That said, with my noms’ help, I have looked into the history of the page in question for further information. In this case, the same editor was working on an article in both mainspace and draftspace simultaneously. That is, they first created an article in the main space (9:26 UTC), then shortly after created the same article in draft space (9:35 UTC). They and another editor expanded the draftspace article before Editor C redirected the mainspace article (10:24 UTC). Between this time and the time I nominated the article for R2 (14:42 UTC), the article creator further expanded the article in draft space. Since that time, both Creator and Editor B have continued to improve the article in draft space. Although I could have reverted the 8993:

draftspace is a personal bugbear, but what I find more objectionable are admins content to look the other way or even condone improper draftification. I've just talked to too many new users over the years who lost their enthusiasm or gave up on the learning curve when their attempt to contribute gets zapped by someone who just drops a template on their user page. I know NPP and deletion-related activities are important, often thankless tasks, and that everyone's a critic. I also know there aren't enough reviewers/participants, which means it's hard to spend a lot of time and personalization on each one. But, and I can't emphasize this enough, that time you spend on a review and interacting with the author will typically be that newbie's most salient interaction and play a huge role in shaping their understanding of this place. I want reviewers to understand that, but I

5032:- enthusiastically. I find the arguments regarding draftifying spurious. I think the project is well-served by editors who focus on the quality of the content on the project, rather than the quantity. If editors feel that draftifying is "bitey", then they should work at improving the crappy articles that get moved to draftspace. Personally, when I was reviewing, I did most of my work at the back of the queue, and when I did move to the front, I tried to stay away from pages created in less than a day. However, there is nothing wrong with reviewing the front of the queue. I find the examples of their draftifying work to be perfect examples of the use of draftify. Draftify is for articles that have a chance of becoming suitable for mainspace, but in their current incarnation leave something to be desired. That was the case in each of these instances. 5551:

and if a draft is declined by an AfC reviewer, you can read why that happens. Ideally you're getting more personalized feedback or you're asking for it if you're confused, but it's not rocket science to read these messages and figure out what you should be doing to get a different result. For the TAO draft, I think I'd realize that I need to cite sources that actually are about the subject given that the one editor removed them for that reason (saying so in the edit summary) and that's comparable to citing no sources at all (what Significa said was the issue with the draft). As for the first example, I would point out that I had cited sources and ask the person if they made a mistake or if there is something I should be doing instead. I actually had a similar interaction as a relative newcomer myself with CaptainEek when they declined one of my drafts

7853:

bothering to read the pages or previous AfDs before you run to an admin and ask them to speedy something. If your mistaken G4s were limited to cases where the previous AFD had been recent, the current article made by the same user or a new one, then I wouldn't hold your mistakes against you. But three seconds of your time, and a little bit of critical thinking, would have saved both yourself and the users whose pages you told were so bad that they weren't even worthy of discussion before you asked for them to be deleted, a lot of stress. And I know I can't speak for anybody else, but I want admins who are methodical, quick to own up when they make mistakes, work to improve once they know they have an issue in that area, and can use their brains. Make sure you're one of them. Prove me and everybody else in the oppose and neutral sections wrong.

5415:, I agree that draftification can be really alienating to new editors (I'm with you, that I think it should be used much less often than it is). But I don't think these four are strong evidence for Significa liberdade being out of step with draftification norms. The caste articles and the Sato-Kishi-Abe family both just had one source; I would generally expect NPPers to take some kind of action on an article that only has one source, whether that's draftification or deletion tagging (and here I disagree with you in general - I think draftification is much less likely to alienate new editors than deletion). For the fourth one, that too appears to be a very standard draftification to me - the editor hadn't made an edit in nearly two hours, and it's 8222:

the candidate to fix that problem, and I definitely do not see this as a reason to have concerns about your candidacy. I'm happy that you can cite an experience in which someone questioned what you did, and you responded in a constructive way, and even came to accept that you had made a mistake. (I also need to think about how you talked about draftifying here fits with the concerns raised by some of the editors who oppose.) I'm going to take a bit longer to think about what has been said in the oppose section, but I'm entirely satisfied with what you told me here. And I'm pleased to see that, on further reflection, other editors agree with me that we should expect some specificity in Q3 answers in future RfAs. --

2246:

counters yours or not, it is an important part of community building. I hope SLD takes these comments to heart and always reach out to experienced admin whenever in doubt. In fact, the reason I am confident is that this candidate is most likely going to reach out to experienced users whenever she's in doubt, it is evident from her contributions so far. NPP is an area of work on English Knowledge where mistakes are bound to be made, I don't know if I should even call them mistakes generally or actions that other users might not agree with. All in all, we're all trying to build a diverse encyclopedia in the spirit of collaboration. This same spirit is what this candidate has used to work on this project.

7312:

knowledge of the candidate which may ameliorate it. That said, I have voted in support of candidates with less experience, and I was leaning towards support in this case on the basis of the candidate's fairly well-considered and re-assuring answers to most inquiries, as well as the large number of endorsements from community members whose impressions I trust. Unfortunately, after seeing some of the issues (many of them recent) that have come to light in the analysis of the candidates activities in NPP and AfD areas, I'm inclined to feel my initial concerns were justified: I just think this user needs a bit more time honing their understanding and approach before the mop is a good fit.

592:

issues—as Diannaa did with me by explaining that book summaries must be written in your own words. Further, when I see a recurrent issue, I find it valuable to check the time passed since the last misstep, as well as their contributions since that misstep. For example, did they receive a copyright notice last week, then make the same error this week? My response will be different in this case compared to someone who received a copyright violation warning a year ago, made a handful of good edits, then added a small amount of copywritten material. My goal is always to assume good faith editing (unless there’s evidence to the contrary) and lead editors down the right path.

4750:: Generally clueful, civil, productive, and otherwise what we look for in admins. The opposition is entirely on the basis of some draftification and deletion-nomination errors and alleged errors (many of the latter subject to considerable disagreement). These are matters that someone can get better up-to-speed on quite quickly; it's a matter of slight adjustment, and there is no evidence of a fundamentally wrongheaded approach. To the extent I retain a concern, EggRoll97's quite concise oppose (and followup response) nail it, but again it's something that's a matter of adjustment to administrative norms, not a matter of an inimical pattern of behavior. 4232:. We often end up discussing imperfect processes at RfA when people mostly act in accordance with these processes (with the occasional mistake). Draftification is one of them. We don't force new article creators through a wizard, where they need to add at least 2/3 sources or indicate the topics meets a SNG. So we have to teach these standards differently. Draftification is perhaps the least bad current option to do that, even with an overly backlogged AfC process. We should spend more energy making the process less BITEy imo, and not judge too harshly the individuals involved. Anyway, competent and kind editor, so my support is there. 8182:! In alignment with what KylieTastic mentioned, I often do not see disagreements as conflicts, and typically, disagreements I’ve had with another editor are sorted in a single response that highlights existing policy and/or explains the inner workings of Knowledge (either by me or the other editor). However, I recall a discussion, which I will summarize for the other editor's privacy in light of asilvering's comment. I'd be happy to email you a link to it if you'd find that helpful in better understanding my approach. I noticed that an experienced editor draftified an article while it was actively being edited. I pointed them to 2319:

block users 100x more than average or decline/accept unblock requests more than average; it doesn't mean they're necessarily doing something wrong. We have editors who vote "keep" or "delete" 100x more often than the average user; doesn't mean they're out of touch with consensus. Some editors who only vote keep, or only vote delete, still have a very high match rate. We have admins who post many times more at ITN than the average ITN admin. Editors who revert 100x more times than the average editor, who create articles 100x more than average... I could go on and on. Being an outlier doesn't necessarily mean being wrong.

5576:

to prioritize the back when we can and typically ask reviewers to do so). When I do work from the front of the queue my draft rate is definitely much higher. I think if the numbers were examined with this sort of thinking and context in mind (some folks clean up at the front of the queue), then they become more understandable and less eye popping. I will also acknowledge I would not have draftified everything that they did, but that's fine, Significa has shown they're willing to learn and adjust during our interactions at NPP and I've found them to be someone who does try to help and coach other editors when they can.

6217:

above are concerning enough that I think things that would make it at AfD are being removed from mainspace without discussion. And that's a problem. I just wouldn't want someone who is making decisions like this to have the admin toolbox--the damage is large enough without the toolbox. As others have said, if you do get that toolbox, I'd urge you to take this feedback on board going forward. And I really think we need a discussion about just not allowing anyone to move something to draft unless either a) they are significant contributors to the article or b) the article would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion.

7544:

take it for granted that not every user has to scour every database. I'm more concerned that WP:BEFORE#D is followed in general. If you tell me it was in this case, I'll believe you. But I'd equally accept and respect "Well, no maybe not completely, but I see the issue with that now." Because, afterall, I'm less concerned with your own history at this point (whatever has been said above, I doubt anybody is actually going to harangue you about your previous AfDs as a result of discussion here), and more concerned with making sure what your administrative actions would be if you saw a similar situation playing out.

1056:

some of the errors mentioned regarding draftification, G4s, and AFDs. For instance, as GreenLipstickLesbian shared, I have made some hasty calls when nominating articles for G4. I have always trusted that the closing administrator would be able to assess the articles accurately with access to the deleted version. That said, I should always take that responsibility upon myself as much as possible, and I will–regardless of whether I become an admin. This similarly applies to prematurely or incorrectly draftified articles, as well as AFDs I withdrew because I found a source in a database I hadn’t originally checked.

5052:

possible. I don't have any general opposition to draftification as part of NPP, but I do think some of the examples given show some carelessness. For example, the Adelaid list that is first on Joe's list should not have been drafitified with a message of "no sources". There may have been other reasons to draftify, as we have developed a culture of valuing inline citations, and since all of the sources were old enough that at least some of the content could not possibly have been verified to them. All that said, we do need to communicate well when pushing things toward deletion. SL is not an admin yet, so

3495:? The reader in me is an irritated oppose voter. However, as a contributor who has seen lots of people grow into responsibilities given proper feedback, I see an editor whose impulses to do something are admirable, and who gets a rhythm going once she's mastered a particular pattern of activity, but who needs to put more time and effort into each decision, even and especially if that means doing nothing rather than the less helpful thing (see also the concerns of oppose voters). Because I have hope that this growth will happen in response to the feedback from this process, I land here. 8340:, so I decided to reduce it to a stub and make a note that it could be expanded with Japanese language sources. One of our many location stubs. Not very good, but I'd already destroyed most of the newbie's contributions and I didn't want to destroy any more. The candidate, coming across it in the new pages queue, moved it to draft with the argument that it needed more sources to establish notability when it very clearly didn't. Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace? That would have been fair. But more sources? I'd provided a massive link to them. There were sources. 7905:

showing how the candidate navigated the situation. If one has had enough experience to be an admin, one has unquestionably observed disagreements and formed some sort of idea about how to deal with them. I can understand how, sort of like real-life political candidates, RfA candidates might not want to get specific, but the community should expect better. Candidates should avoid vague answers, and nominators should discourage that. At some point, I might actually start opposing candidates for these kinds of answers, but for now I just want to put these ideas out there. --

4704:. I agree with Joe Roe and with most other opposes, but not making this editor into an admin will not fix the issues as the candidate will remain an NPP and will be able to continue doing the same things. Let's be very practical here. What are the consequences of the outcomes we are dealing with? Candidate needs to take the feedback and improve while being an admin. Opposing is a statement of principle but doesn't look forward. Looking forward is making more strongly worded P&G on unilateral draftification. Editor is collegial, reasonable, and takes feedback.— 4573:

but if you account for self-reverts and treat the group of station noms in July 2023 as one decission they look fine. The draftification is a concern, but I belive it is used too much in general: it is a nice idea that it's beter that AfD, but in practice many are never editing again in draft then deleted, where at AfD at least it has a chance of being saved. I urge them to take the critisisms onboard and when if comes to deletions and draftications just a small slow down and mental double checking should resolve any issues. Overall net positive.

8014:. In that case the range of ways people can interpret Q3 is even wider than I had previously been concerned about. I don't consider that I've ever been in a real conflict on here, but I've had hundreds if not thousands of vandals and promoters etc shit-post or threaten me. I would not consider it a conflict unless both parties are 'engange' in it, so maybe Q3 needs re-wording as this is not the first time this has come up. Maybe consider using your second question to ask the candidate for clarification in line with how you view conflict? Cheers 8186:, which suggests refraining from draftification for at least an hour after the article's last edit; they responded that DRAFTIFY is only an explanatory essay. While the discussion went back and forth a few times, I asked them to clarify their position, explained my perspective and understanding, and conceded where I felt I'd made a mistake. When I felt as though an agreement could not be met, I offered to request a third opinion; a talk page watcher offered theirs, which helped clarify the situation. I hope this helps! 1023:

messages. They would, however, be too INVOLVED to close an MfD of a subpage for WikiProject Military History. Personally, while my editing is more heavily concentrated in some topic areas than others (neurodiversity and women writers, for example), I don't believe my editing precludes me from taking admin actions on disputes in the same high-level topic area, provided that those disputes are not more directly related to me in some other way. For example, I would certainly be too INVOLVED to close an RfC on

9484:

doesn't want to research the subject and develop the article further, which is of course possible but not really what the reviewer is there for). In my experience, if you draftify, someone will squeal and tell you in no uncertain terms you should have gone for deletion instead. And if you go for deletion, you will get heat for not draftifying. (Also, if you request speedy, you'll be told you should've gone for AfD, and v.v.) I think the technical term for this is "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't". --

8946:

improve articles), even if different users have different tastes as to which processes they prefer to make use of and how. The movetodraft script is relatively new, so some users will use it much more often than others and make more mistakes. Sometimes the candidate might have made marginal decisions or mislabelled reasons, but I think the guidance about when draftication is to be used is pretty unclear and not very concrete. I think the candidate has acted in good faith in the examples I've looked at.

4720:

think that Joe's argument, about the draft where sources had been removed by another editor, and how that could discourage a new editor, is an important one. The fact that one of the noms would have persevered does not mean that a new editor would have. So the decision for me came down to whether or not I feel I can trust the candidate to learn from the feedback here, or whether this is some sort of fundamental flaw in the ability of the candidate to handle deletion properly. I'm convinced that I

140:, where she's processed thousands of new articles – which, for her, is its own crash course in copyvio, categories, CSD, and probably other useful things that don't start with 'c'. She also pitches in at AfC and does lots of maintenance and gnoming work across the site. In my interactions with Significa liberdade, I've found her to be unfailingly gracious, open to criticism, and patient with new editors' complaints and questions. With that, I'm delighted to submit Significa liberdade for the mop. 9433:

about a page having been draftified, Template:Uw-articletodraft, makes no mention whatsoever about the existence of this right to object to draftification or how to exercise it. IMO, this is a significant problem that needs to be remedied since newer (or even many more experienced editors) usually have no idea that they can object to a page they created having been draftified. By contrast, both the PROD and Speedy Deletion notification templates clearly specify how to raise an objection.

3607:, the idea of not letting things remain just because they are there, and when to back off and wait for a close, as she did 2 days after nominating.Moreover, he nomination may have been premature or benefited from prior tagging, but I seriously doubt this will impede on Sig's abilities to wipe the goddamn cutting-room floor. She knew that the nomination would be controversial and skipped PROD, which is when she would've deleted the page as a nominator if the opposers' arguments stood. 4613:

not abuse the tools. Comments on the wider policy that has embroiled this RfA: 1. The true cost of AfD in editor time is constantly underestimated. Independent source searches, reviews, and reasoned opinions from a nom, two !voters, and a closing admin (the minimum for a proper AfD) totals about an hour of work. 2. The draftification process is imperfect. However, although they may not know this, any editor can object to draftification for any reason they like. This means that it

276:. The latter is especially important when communicating via text when nonverbals such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures are unavailable. When handling disagreements, I call to mind and/or search for relevant policy, then seek input from the community as needed. Importantly, whenever conflicts or disagreements arise, I reflect on my actions to better understand how I could do better in the future, which has helped me continuously grow as a Wikipedian and person. 3446:

attributions and notes: Significa liberdade's responses to the questions above are good enough for me to not lean towards the opposing side, and I completely agree with Asilvering and Theleekycauldron's points in that section below. Not seeing any red flags here, at least ones enough for me to oppose. Also, I didn't look at how many articles she's made before – an astonishing amount, by just looking at the totals. And the great RfA noms too. Enough said. Giving a

7419:

put them to work in same areas. Historically, I try to stay away from the great deletionist/inclusionist philosophical debate and its war of a thousand wills, expressed daily in a dozen fora. But I'll be honest, I am a little nervous about SL utilizing the same level of attention to detail when judging AfDs and new pages as an admin, at this point in time. I feel there's an appreciable risk that we will lose some things that we shouldn't.

1777:

space (improve your work) is far less bitey than AfD (delete your work if it doesn't meet our complicated to newcomer notability guidelines within the next 7 days). Draftification is not the same thing as deletion, but they're being equated to one another by some in this discussion. There are also some misleading numbers in the oppose section, which I'm not confident are accurate, and which also lack meaningful context. I'm one of the

580:

here and evidently without ill intent, and have not reoccurred. However, I am curious about how these incidents shaped your editing, and how they shape your approach to working with new editors now. As an administrator, how would you make sure you are getting through to new editors about our policies? How do you balance making sure policy is followed with the danger of driving away productive contributors via rule-laden warnings?

6731:, and they are part of a consistent pattern of poor judgement. Given that Significa stated in Q1 that her primary reason for wanting to be an admin is to deal with articles that may need to be deleted, I do not trust her with the tools at this time. I think we all see Significa as a valued contributor to the project, and I would be happy to support her in a future RFA after this issue has been properly addressed and resolved. 5849:. Like Joe, this is not a comprehensive deep dive into every single NPP action the candidate has made, but the amount of errors made here, combined with their intent to work on deletion, lead me to grave concerns about trusting them with the toolset. I assume I have a minority view here, and if this RfA passes, I advise SL to use the deletion tool sparingly and exercising caution, checking the full page history carefully. 1722:, which others have cited as an example of over-hasty deletion tendencies, is a good example. Here, a new page patroller comes across a newly created BLP article on a subject who is in the news because she has been indicted for a crime. Since all the sources in the article at that time concerned the indictment, this could present a BLP issue; the NPPer first looks for other sources, but doesn't find enough to establish a 7845:

instructions because you were, yet again, "too hasty", not a deceitful attempt to avoid scrutiny, does help. I'm still going to leave the text out because it's unsupported by the source provided (and, in future, you should not be so concerned with the content that you forget to double check the content). I also think you need to repair the attribution for the content you moved into the Wayward Children series article.

7450:: I completely understand the concern and how Toadspike's argument may have been taken. I wanted to add that I decided to only nominate a few of the bundled articles at a time so as not to overload AfD with 31 very similar articles. I also wanted to do a deeper search into some newspaper archives that can be a bit finicky on my devices. I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. 4867: 4862: 4857: 7471:--thank you for the response; it's nice to meet you. :) I think you are likely to pass regardless of whether I change my !vote, so I wish you well with the tools and the mop, and thank you for volunteering your time with them. But just to be pro forma, I'm going to make my arguments exactly as I would have otherwise; I'm sure you can appreciate the value of still having the conversation. With regard to 6150:. Combined with the opposes I see above, and her answer to Q1, I get the sense that this candidate is too eager to "clean up messes" using administrative tools, when constructively fixing the issue would be the preferred route. Again, I hate to discourage such a diligent, productive and responsible editor, but I feel like she'd benefit from another six months of honing her XfD and draftification skills. 235:-deleted, but without access to the deleted page, determining whether the creation is legitimately new or also block evasion is challenging. Dealing with these cases would be much easier as an admin because I could see the evidence more clearly and action the issue myself rather than burdening another admin. In addition to these issues, I regularly uncover articles with copyright violations that require 5726:

actually look irrelevant, e.g. what does "The jetties of South Australia" or a book on railcars have to do with these railways?) in question. If I was to want to verify any particular statement I would have very little idea where to begin. For this reason the article was denied AfC, and I'd tend to take being denied AfC as making an implication that the original draftification had some logic to it.

258:. In this role, I combine my skills of writing content and helping newer editors find their footing. Getting started on Knowledge can be confusing, and receiving feedback on an article you created can feel like punishment. In my role with NPP, I try to make these early experiences less stressful and more rewarding and beneficial so these editors continue contributing to make Knowledge better. 875:). I find that many notable books and authors are not represented and thus, seek to fix that. Sometimes, I create book articles without plot summaries because I do not always feel confident creating a plot summary based on reviews without reading the book, though I have been trying to include at least a few sentences in the lead (as evidenced by the book articles I created this past month: 8537:, 1948) without stating that the legal rule had been overturned just two years later and no longer applied. No doubt the author would have added that information eventually... but they should do that in draftspace, so that readers who read it in the meantime are not misinformed. I'm glad NPP reviewers like SL are making sure this kind of misinformation doesn't stay in mainspace. 2107:

kept in perspective during an RfA. When things are going well in these areas there is seldom credit given, but when things are going poorly, those who boldly volunteer get the blame. Denying a draft or draftifying a poorly sourced article does not, in my opinion, chase off newbie editors - rather it helps to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia - these procedures have an

521:. That surprised me a bit, because looking back, if I had the opportunity to pursue a PhD, that would have occupied the vast majority of my mental energy, and new hobbies would not have been a priority for me back then. All people are different, but I am a bit curious about your desire for new hobbies at that specific point in your life. Can you shed any light on that? 5496:

offer here) are that this is carelessness, and contrary to suggestions above way beyond the level of a 'one-off mistake' (again these are five errors from the last thirty days); or that SL is applying a standard above that of written expectations of the community, which is a problem because the people who write articles only know the written standard, not SL's. –

9677:- The use of draftify to the degree it has been is very off putting to new editors, wait until the experience grows and come back in future having addressed the concerns raised here. The ‘it will fix with experience‘ arguments are bad as it assumes experience leads to corrections when it can lead to entrenchment. The corrections need to demonstrated first. 7900:

concern. It's the answer to Q3, the standard question about conflicts in the past. I think I'm seeing a growing trend towards answers like the one given here, and I want to give some pushback against answering the question that way. Basically, the answer reads like a series of bland platitudes. So you approach it "with a level head"? If someone were to

4317:

get why you'd prefer to hear from the candidate themselves. I didn't really want other people responding for me in my RfA but I also happened to be a self nom. Obviously there's an art to knowing when to reply or not but I don't think I edged beyond that? I'm open to further feedback and discussion on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further.

8616:"But developments since Ahrens have had a profound impact on the continuing vitality of that decision. First, in the course of overruling the application of Ahrens ... Congress has indicated that a number of the premises which were thought to require that decision are untenable. A 1950 amendment to the habeas corpus statute ... 28 U.S.C. § 2255." 3816:"needs more sources" for nonspecific reasons that aren't written down in any community policies or guidelines, you can probably see why bad draftications are bad for editor retention. This is relevant to this RfA because admins, like NPPers, are supposed enforce the community's written expectations of editors and content -- no more, no less. – 4059:. Due to the vagaries of search algorithms and general enshittification/dead internet search results can vary widely, and be padded out with dumpters full of hot garbage. I'm willing to AGF that BEFORE was followed and no sources were found. That is why we have a community discussion at AfD, many sets of eyes are better than one. 1739:); she does not engage. (I'd say this is a good example of her attitude to conflict, for those looking for one.) I don't see an overactive deletion sense at work here. What I see is a conscientious editor who has observed a problem and brought it forward for community discussion. (I also see a great many very poor AfD !votes.) 8581:

been to use a work in progress template tag, but such tags are meant to be used by the editor in question) I would personally regard an article as mainspace (as opposed to draft) if it's fine if the original editor walked away from it and never edited it again and it only got picked up by some other editor a year later.

665:

However, the goal of an encyclopedia is to describe and explain. This changes the language used and organization, among other factors. Additionally, as someone advances through the ranks of academia, they are expected more and more to contribute new ideas to literature, but this would fall under the category of

7513:: Thank you for your reply. I certainly do not expect you to change your vote, and I don't intend to quibble. However, I will note that BEFORE also recognizes that editors do not all have access to the same resources and does not require editors to search every potential database. Rather, it includes a list of 6622:, really gives me further pause. I would expect an experienced NPPer (or admin candidate looking to work the CSD queues) to have solid knowledge of the CSD criteria and be able to answer fairly straightforward questions like these on the first attempt. I hope that this was merely SL phrasing the answer badly. 5695:

I've reviewed from the front, the back, the hindquarters and every other part of the queue for eight years, evaluated hundreds of requests for the NPP permission, and patrolled thousands of draftified articles, and I can tell you that whichever way you look at it SL is very quick to draftify things. –

8163:

Oh, of course, no problem. I'm already leaning towards supporting, but I think the issue I raised is something that needs consideration. It's not really finding fault with the candidate (except that this particular answer ended up being so illustrative of the problem), so much as bringing up an issue

7991:

Given that these mitigations are available, I'm overall sympathetic to Tryptofish's stance. The candidate's insight about nonverbals in Q3 here is fine, but the answer would have been a lot stronger with examples, and we should push for those (or seek them out in our vetting). I do think that broader

7848:

The major opposition to this RfA, mine included, has been grounded in the fact that many people, even your supporters, are having to decide whether your mistakes are proof of negligence and carelessness, or simply oversights. The fact, especially with your draftifications, that you've used misleading

5938:

I came here minded to support, but Joe and Ritchie have unfortunately swayed me, especially since the candidate expresses interest in deletion work in her answer to Q1. Should this RfA succeed, which it presently looks like it will, I wish Significa liberdade the best as an administrator and urge her

5575:

I actually think this is missing some meaningful context and, though they may draftify more than others, thirty times more isn't accurate. One thing to consider is that I don't think the "top reviewers" (I'm #4 on the year with over 4k article reviews) usually work from the front of the queue (we try

5550:

I think I would persevere, yes. I don't think this approach contradicts anything I've ever said about encouraging newcomers. I don't expect newcomers to be perfect but I also don't expect people to understand all the nuances of Knowledge right away. Learning in draftspace can be a valuable experience

5487:

And it's not just the error rate that is telling here, but how heavily SL uses draftification in general. Over the last year she has draftified 91 new articles for every 100 she has marked reviewed. That is compared to an average of 3 articles draftified for every 100 reviewed by the top 10 reviewers

5390:

back in July 2023 and received no response. I regretfully didn't raise my concerns with her directly before this RfA, but I believe I've reverted several of the individual draftifications (explaining why in the edit summary), which also could have been an opportunity for SL to course-correct. I don't

4719:

After giving this a lot of thought, I land here. I can, however, see a good case for declining the request in order that the candidate spend some time demonstrating that she has understood the draftification concerns, and then come back for a second RfA. But I've decided that this is not necessary. I

4438:

I disagree with the oppose voters that someone who processes hundreds of new pages should be dunked on for a few errors during the process. If a page really is notable, the process will sort itself out anyway, but I don't see erroneous nominations to the point of disruption. This seems like precisely

4287:

I think this RFA has been good for Significa liberdade to see where the community has concerns and I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she will take this feedback constructively and with caution. Separately, I am disappointed with amount of badgering being directed at the oppose and neutral

4007:

is an option if the community becomes considerably unsatisfied with her performance. I'm not worried about "backdoor deletion" as, based on the participation at this RfA, I'm sure plenty of administrators will be keeping an eye on her deletions for a time. Candidate has expressed that criticisms will

2994:

I looked into the candidate’s record and it is impressive. They make an average of 42.3 edits per day, without drama and they perform valuable NPP and content work. The candidate has been active and made 62k edits in four years. They have also demonstrated a need for the tools. Of the two nominators

2928:

At 89% as I write this, so I'm not sure this is needed. But just confirming to the closing Crat that I've read the opposes that have come up after my initial support, and still believe they would make a good admin. They seem thoughtful and open to feedback. I don't think we want to make perfect the

2422:

Noting that I've read the oppose, but I'm yet to see a "pattern" here. Given the number of patrols done, a few mistakes are expected (the lack of them would indicate a propensity to only patrol easy articles). None of the examples show that the user has "deletionist" tendencies or does not care about

2245:

Less than 45 hours before this RfA closes naturally, I am writing this. I've read through the concerns raised by distinguished Wikipedians in the oppose section and have come to reaffirm that I support this candidacy still. On Knowledge, it is an important thing to respect people's opinion whether it

2111:

for newbies. We should not be here to coddle and hand-hold newbies, but rather to clearly and directly inform them why an article or draft is not ready for publication or is inappropriate for publication. More and more I see the encyclopedia used for promotional purposes or as a webhost or as a venue

2106:

and continue to grow as a volunteer. Personally I'd like to see a slightly higher percentage of successful matches at AfD (in other words, more than 74%), however I don't see the draftifications as problematic. Working at AfD and NPP is very hard volunteer work, and no one is perfect – this should be

579:

on your talk page. This is a common issue for many new editors. In each case, you eventually removed the note without commentary and they no longer appear in your talk archives. To be clear, I don't think this is remotely disqualifying - none of the issues were egregious, they were early in your time

516:

This is by no means a trick question and I ask it out of genuine curiosity. I had to work my way very slowly through college in the 1970s and it took me quite a few years to earn a bachelor's degree due to my personal financial realities. I would have loved to pursue a PhD but it was not possible due

8945:

I think there's a separate conversation to have about how the draftification process might be improved to not be alienating to newcomers. But I don't think an editor should be castigated for using a wikipedia process for the reasons it is intended to be used for (to allow time, eyeballs and space to

8707:

No, we haven't. You keep doing this thing: you're welcome to have an opinion, but don't state your opinion as fact. I haven't seen many errors at all; I've looked at what other people call errors, like the specific draftificatons, etc., and I don't think they were errors, I agree with them. So, "we"

8555:

within 4hrs of the article's existence. Second, referring to this claim in a legal case's "Background" section as "misinformation" is incorrect because the claim is still true! In 1948, the Supreme Court decided the specific issue of judicial jurisdiction over Ellis Island and then distinguished its

8443:

Haven't thoroughly evaluated the candidate, so I don't feel confident supporting, but just commenting to say I don't find any of the oppose rationales compelling. Although I rarely use it, I think draftify gets too much heat as an option when the disadvantages of alternatives like AfD (wasted editor

8221:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Significa liberdade, and you were as prompt as I would want any candidate to be. Although, as a matter of how the community does these things, I think Sdkb makes a valid point, and I appreciate the agreement with my concerns, I don't think it's your responsibility as

7874:

Due to concerns about excessive draftifications and recent errors indicated by others. I acknowledge that Significa liberdade was very kind and responsive when I inquired about one of the lists that I had created and she had moved to the draft space; however many new users may not be aware that that

7852:

I know now, looking back at the talkpage archives, that you were pressured a bit to run. But you benefit from having a safety net. You benefit from other people looking over your actions - in fact, from the G4's, I know it's something you've come to rely upon. Because AFAICT, you haven't always been

7052:

thanks for your commitment and for stepping forward. But as those above have detailed, this candidate looks like they will be too heavy handed with the deletion button. I'd be happy to consider again in a few months if the deletion tagging improves. Perhaps a bit more work on improving articles that

6072:

One question is not "badgering" by any stretch. I stand by my opinion that an experienced editor should not create new articles with zero sources. That's literally what draftspace is for. It was two hours with no sources added before the article was moved to draftspace which is entirely appropriate.

6047:

discourages draftification if "another editor is actively working on the article" and only gives the "Under construction" notice and one-hour timer as examples. Did Significa clearly violate policies/guidelines by draftifying? No, but I am still entitled to vote oppose if I think that editors should

5812:

I am concerned about the errors that Joe Roe raised. I can see several people querying mistakes the candidate has made on their talk page, and although they were polite, I'm unsure an administrator should be making that many errors, as it can still lead to an unpleasant ANI thread. Some problematic

5743:

Regarding Braden, the guidance on your linked page is "e.g. there is an under construction notice or there have been constructive edits made within the last hour". But the article in question had no such notice and there had been no edits for 90 minutes. So within the guidance provided, their action

5533:

I recently read an article in which you were quoted on some excellent points about the need to make Knowledge more accessible to a new generation of editors of we're going to remain relevant. Imagine you're one of those new editors. You create an article and list your sources. An hour later, someone

4975:

That's the thing, that's an opinion not a fact. I actually very much disagree that it makes the queue worse, and I spend more time working on the queue than most (5k+ article reviews over the past year). Also, most NPPers are not AfC reviewers, there's actually less overlap working in the areas than

4554:

At AfD I have previously raised my own general concerns about draftification as backdoor deletion - so I understand the reason for the discussion - but for myself I do not see the views raised below as weighty enough to tip the balance. There's demonstrated willingness to cooperate and civility from

3815:

None of the examples of bad draftications discussed below involve unsourced articles. That's the point. If you put yourself in the shoes of a new editor who took the time to contribute a new article and, as asked, list your sources, only to have it rejected from mainspace because it's "unsourced" or

3067:

For the record, I have reviewed the opposes that have popped up since my initial support, and am not persuaded. It is rare that a candidate for the mop won't have some issue in their background that can be latched onto. In this case, I don't believe the issues are weighty enough to cause me to doubt

1793:

As ScottishFinnishRadist mentioned, anyone who's spent time at AFD has probably done a BEFORE search that turned up nothing, to which editors immediately found sources for. A lot of the feedback is focused on a common NPP practice, but SL has shown they're more than willing to listen to feedback and

1742:

We want admins who can change their minds when faced with new information, and who learn from past criticism. We don't want admins who delete articles out of process or make snap decisions against community consensus, and who react angrily when challenged. Significa liberdade is clearly in the first

1717:

In light of some of these opposes, which came in after I first !voted, I'd like to expand on my support rationale. I don't at all think that the evidence here shows that SL is deletion-happy or will do harm given the extra tools. On the contrary, I see very strong evidence that this is an editor who

1570:

I dislike the (new?) thing where people have to reaffirm their !votes. But I have been watching this play out and ultimately I still am strongly supporting this nomination. I will be watching this RfA for the next 25 hours, so 'crats, unless I indicate otherwise, please treat this as if I reaffirmed

1115:

Sorry for slipping this question in at the last minute. If you don't get a chance to answer it, I completely understand. One of the reasons you feel admin tools might be useful to you is to help you assess whether an article is eligible for G4. Us non-admins are often in a awkward position with that

727:, noting that a mainspace article exists, and recommend the editor to expand the mainspace article. If the draft was not awaiting review, I would suggest the editor(s) merge content from the draft to the mainspace article. After the merge, the draft could then be redirected to the mainspace article. 636:

Due to my areas of administrative interest, I do not foresee many issues related to being involved, except where involvement may be more direct, such as anything relating to articles I’ve written, closing AFDs in which I’ve !voted, or acting as an admin with users with whom I may have disputes. If I

327:

Honestly, I’m not sure what the exact impetus was! I made relatively few edits for the first year and a half (though many related to literature), then became much more active in early 2022. I had recently moved to a new area and started a PhD, so I was in need of new hobbies. Lo and behold, Wiki was

9483:

Just as a general observation and not looking at anyone in particular... When doing NPP and coming across an article with lack of evidence of notability and/or inadequate referencing, one has the options of draftifying it, requesting speedy, or starting an AfD discussion (assuming that the reviewer

9237:

to be the first non-nominator commenting on this, especially when theleekycauldron and Clovermoss are two of my favourite users? I never thought that they are both nominating Significa liberdade and that I (just about) secured first place! It's nice to see them both here. I managed to even write at

8861:

an editor can just unilaterally disagree and undraft) and it takes less time, so why not do it? Also wikipedia as a community has had a pretty poor record of actually addressing citation needed and fact tags (some of which have endured for DECADES) so draftification is useful in terms of compelling

8811:

I will say there looking in the draft log there's possible examples in the past where there is issues where moving to draft might have had negative consequences where (inadvertent) "backdoor deletion" may have resulted. But I regard that as issues with the drafting process and not a failure on SL's

8792:

Well, the objection is that there doesn't seem to be a clear identified pattern of bad draftications. The particular drafticiations (which I'm supposing represent the worst of their behaviour) that are brought up as problematic seem *arguable* at least, perhaps overly harsh sometimes but within the

8113:

Well of course that's a conflict, and it's deescalation. (If editors are "at odds", then they have a conflict.) And yes, it's a normal day on Knowledge. But being the editor who comes up with "C", instead of being one of the editors who had dug in their feet for "A" or "B", is a sign of someone who

7957:

I don't think this is a reasonable ask. I don't think it would be very kind to an editor who showed up and said something rude to me on my talk page to put their rude behaviour in front of several hundred RFA participants. Especially not when the aim is to demonstrate that the candidate isn't going

7418:

were later judged as appropriate for deletion. So, you know...only twenty-three were unambiguous errors." That would be kind of concerning for any candidate for the bit, let alone someone who has been particularly active in deletion/article disposition-centered areas, and wants the tools in part to

6312:

budding content creators or as a backdoor to deletion. It shouldn't be this easy to find problems with the work of an admin. Looking at their talk page, I find myself less than impressed with the interaction under "The Deep (Dunmore novel)". From what others have mentioned, this is rather a typical

6242:

is pretty clear that anyone that has an issue with one can move the article back to mainspace. I'm not the candidate but I'm also active in NPP, so there's a lot that people consider when reviewing pages (I rarely draftity myself). That said, there's way more to consider than AfD or speedy deletion

6216:

I'll admit I'm just generally opposed to NPP folks (or anyone else really) sending articles to draft that wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion--I just think it can often become a backdoor deletion mechanism when we have very clear rules about our deletion processes. But the particular cases listed

6190:

Hi. Since any editor can nominate an AfD, I myself don't see this as a concern for an admin. The six AfD linked all seem to be done in good faith. I do agree that the candidates search skills (for RS sources) could be improved. Fwiw, #6 may have wrongly kept because the first comment cited a policy

5659:

In any case, the mean draftification rate of the five editors above and below SL in the list of top reviewers is 4 per 100 reviews. The mean draftification of a random sample of ten editors from the top 100 is 9 per 100 reviews. So we can conclude that SL draftifies articles thirty times more often

5075:

I'm very happy to see an answer to Q21. After I passed my RfA, I had a short conversation with some other admins about the huge mindset shift of having the power to use the tools, as oppose to just requesting their use. I felt pretty paralyzed and over-cautious, a feeling I and others have found to

4990:

Well no, it is an objective fact one way or the other, though I'll admit I don't have enough evidence to prove my hypothesis. That is what I've long said we need to actually tackle the backlog: hard evidence on what causes it and what works in reducing it, not deletionist or inclusionst polemics or

4943:

Moving an article to draftspace actually excerbates the NPP backlog because when it moves back it has to be reviewed a second time. And in the mean time it has probably also been reviewed by one or more AfC reviewers, and since most NPPers are AfCers and vice versa, that's taking from the same pot

4316:

I'll take that into consideration. I was trying to limit my feedback to direct counterarguments (I think it's only fair to offer all perspectives, even if reasonable people may disagree with each other). I don't think it's badgering to do that when RfA is a consensus-building discussion, although I

1000:

Let's try Question 13A again, since considering yourself involved if you consider yourself involved doesn't tell us much. What do you mean by being involved in a "topic"? Would a coordinator of the Military History Project be involved if they closed military-related AfD discussions or sent out mass

696:

A newish user, say around 500 edits, creates a stub - short, perhaps, but neutral, referenced, and not in an A7able category - in mainspace and a very slightly longer version in draft. A somewhat more experienced editor redirects the mainspace version to the draft one, and a few hours later a much

378:

As an educator and learner, editing Knowledge taps into multiple core aspects of my identity. The more I’ve learned about Knowledge as a resource, including its founding function and ongoing goals, the more I admire it and want to make it a valuable resource. Beyond this, as I’ve continued editing,

312:

When I first log on to Knowledge every day, I review any notifications I’ve received, then review the Page Curation tool for NPP. Beyond reviewing, I often have lists of articles to improve, whether those are existing categories (e.g., novels needing citations) or articles I’ve bookmarked for later

162:

weaknesses, ideally we balance each other out. I first noticed Significa liberdade from her work as an active new page patroller. It's work that requires extensive policy knowledge and people skills. I think I can easily trust her with the tools. Just look at all the people telling her to go for it

9374:

It's a bit odd. I saw a comment to that effect ("CENT being down") elsewhere, and true, it wasn't (and isn't) showing for me. I've checked my prefs; no restrictions on banners etc. Unfortunately, I can't for the life of me find the original discussion/comment, as I think I just read it rather than

8992:

Thought this over and decided to put my oppose comment in the neutral category. This will close as successful soon, and I'm content to leave this here and hope the candidate takes the opposition's comments on board, even if they're in the minority. More or less per Joe, Hobit, Owen, etc. Misuse of

8773:

that would be a reason for deletion, not draftification. The fact that the movetodraft script includes "needs more sources" as a rationale selectable by checkbox would induce users to believe this is a valid reason to make such a move. Yes - policy by javascript is rather silly, but hence my point

6767:

I was taking a few days to consider this RfA, personally. The concerns raised about backdoor deletion are concerning, and they personally sway me over towards opposition. Non-admins cannot review deleted pages (and a recent proposal to allow such has generally petered out), so I see it as somewhat

6272:

Yes, but A) we should require anyone moving things to draft space like this to leave a note saying "hey you can move this back". Instead people just assume they cannot and we end up driving away the newbies (but not the experienced editors who know the rules) B) I 100% agree draftification is not

5694:

I suppose you could calculate the standard deviation, which would tell you whether SL is within the normal range. But I think I've provided ample empirical evidence at this point. I could, of course, have not bothered to do so, and like others here fell back on an argument from authority: say that

5129:

The G4's I brought up (three of out four of them, anyway) were pretty troutable. If what SL took from them, and the disputes over her use of the draftify tool and its automated edit summaries (thanks for turning those concerns into a referendum on draftification, everybody), that she needs to slow

4724:

trust the candidate and, ironically, the discussion over my neutral comment did a lot to bring me here. Seeing the candidate link to an actual conflict, in which she actually asked for advice about how she could do better in the future, provided me with evidence that this is someone who does learn

4612:

It took a lot of time to come to this decision. Reading all the opposes, neutrals, comments, questions, and answers to questions, gave me some pause. But seeing several users I highly respect re-affirming their support above, I am convinced that Significa is a competent, level-headed user who will

4572:

the issues in the opposes are of concern but after spending some time looking at the totality of their work in differnt areas I belive these issues are more missteps in an overall sea of good work and good attitude. The AfD results looked sub-optimal from what I would expect from an admin at first

3470:

As a reader of the encyclopedia I have encountered this editor's work about books on several occasions, and I've been able to guess this page creator by the particular combination of a) tons of quotes linked with minimal text and b) an almost complete lack of indication of what the fucking book is

1789:

to search for pages to review by key word, which leads to fewer deletions and draftifies because I'm searching for inherently notable topics at times. Someone who works from the front of the queue and, for instance, filters pages under 5kb would be much more likely to find items that would benefit

1544:

Clovermoss to nominate you. On that basis alone I would land in support. But if that is not enough for you, Significa liberdade is a kind, productive, and helpful editor. Even if granting the mop were a big deal – and I firmly believe it should not be – I could not be more enthusiastic in strongly

1055:

Regardless of whether I pass, the feedback from the community so far has given me lots to reflect on regarding my approach to draftification and deletion. Thus far, the following advice has resonated with me the most: “slow down”. This applies across numerous arenas but especially when considering

468:

liberty), which results in numerous misunderstandings regarding freedom. In this particular case, my editing and contributions are free (as in “beer”); otherwise, our freedoms to/from need to co-exist in a harmonious society (as in “speech”). Knowledge is most valuable as a free (as in "beer") and

9587:

I did not state that Significa did not do her due diligence. Perhaps you are confusing my statement with OwenX's. Looking at Significa's AfD nominations, it is clear that she puts a lot of time and effort into them. The problem is that she still too often nominates articles that aren't even worth

8676:

You don't know how many mistakes she's made. Oppose if you want to, but don't act like you've done a thorough audit of her patrols and have calculated an error rate to determine if her mistakes are "too many" or not. (Just like you haven't fact checked the articles she's draftified and thus don't

8580:

You did it after draftification though. Would it have been particularly bad for the article to have been returned to the mainspace after you've finished writing it? I don't think it's unreasonable to put incomplete articles that are being worked on into the draft space. (Another option would have

7919:

Are you saying only people that have got into conflicts can be admins? The question says "Have you been in any conflicts..." but you say "If one has had enough experience to be an admin, one has unquestionably observed disagreements" which is totally different. Observing is not being part of, and

7764:

I admit its not best line but its a list article and a tiny part of the article on its own. Difficult to formulate it any way as an intro sentence. Earwig did pick it up when comparing a single website url to the article. More so, it seems to be a content thing, rather than in the administrative

7543:

But when you came back to the table with the second round of proposed deletions, you only put forth 8 out of the 31. So are you saying that, of the 23 books that ultimately proved to be notable, they turned out to only have sources on that one website that happened to be a blind spot for you? I

6975:

can be used at any time to put the old article in one's userspace for examination (I do this all the time) unless there's a hardcore policy violation at stake (e.g. article was a copyvio or an attack page). Ultimately, when creating (or examining) a new/recent article for a subject about which an

6331:

It is a bit disengeous to select two of the worst written articles I've seen and then make a comparison to featured article standard, when both articles are straight copy-paste numbers that are not only unsourced but do little service the requirements of the average reader. I don't believe that a

5725:

Regarding the Adelaide list, I think "no sources" might be not necessarily accurate, but I'm satisfied with the draftification because the issue is that it has no *inline* sources. The sources listed are a number of general books and journal articles about the railway line (some of the references

5676:

I'm not going to criticize your math here but I do think that Hey man im Josh has a point. A lot of reviewers approach NPP at the front of the queue mostly (including me) and review obvious passes. If you're patrolling a lot at the back, you're left with a lot of iffy cases that people previously

4214:

they have created, this is an editor with a lot of (1) skill and (2) passion for Knowledge. An admin misusing the tools will attract a lot of 'heat', so the candidate would be foolish to ignore the concerns of the Oppose. Having read through their articles, the candidate does not strike me as a

2318:

On the statistical analysis, I don't quibble with the methodology, but I do quibble with the premise: just because one editor does something 10x or 30x or 100x more often than average doesn't mean they are doing something wrong. We have admins who delete pages 100x more than the average admin, or

1776:

As an NPP coordinator who greatly appreciates SL's contributions, I'd also like to re-affirm my support. Can we please try to AGF more of the candidate here? People are accusing them of being a backdoor deletionist, but that's not what's happening here or what draft space is. I've long said draft

1096:

The account name was not created as a quotation or allusion. Rather, my IRL name means ‘freedom’, and I was studying Portuguese when I created the account, so I liked the phrase “ means freedom” ( significa liberdade). To refrain from putting my own name on Knowledge, I decided to use the phrase

1063:

as many good articles as possible. Sometimes, you can do an exhaustive BEFORE and not find anything due to the resources available to you. However, someone else might find sources because they speak another language, have access to a different database, or just know where to look better than you.

866:

I want to take this opportunity to address both your question and the concerns you raised in your support !vote. As a reader of Knowledge, I understand it can be frustrating to find articles with incomplete information. I’ve certainly felt that frustration – sometimes finding that the information

253:

I became interested in editing Knowledge to improve coverage for underrepresented populations; as a content creator, I stuck to that idea by creating over 550 articles, most of which relate to women, LGBT+ folks, and people of colour. Beyond this, I have improved hundreds more articles in smaller

9432:

states that "Other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD." However, the standard page notice

8928:

makes mistakes, what's important is how you deal with them - and the newish user's parallel version in draft turns out to have been the result of some not-great advice. But then, an admin actually deleted the redirect anyway, so yeah. You'll probably do as an ok as an admin, but please be more

8098:

Sure. But isn't this what KylieTastic is talking about, regarding not seeing that as conflict? This kind of situation you're describing just sounds to me like a normal day on Knowledge. Regarding rude and trollish comments, we can see how a candidate deals with that sort of thing by scrolling up

7904:

a candidate with that little specificity or evidence, it would rightly be seen as an aspersion or personal attack, so we should expect the same level of evidence-to-back-it-up for things that are positive. I think an ideal answer to that standard question would include links to actual conflicts,

7827:! I agree that I should have included a more complete attribution in the edit summary for the Wayward Children series article. I regret that hasty edit for multiple reasons. Are you also stating there was promotional copyvio added to that page, or were you referencing the Anthony Awards article? 7293:

Bad deletions hurt editor recruitment and retention, and enthusiasm for deletion processes should match discernment and judgment. Come hang out at DRV for a few months, demonstrate you've taken this under advisement, and try again. Or, if you're promoted, I strongly recommend you do it anyway to

7092:

To clarify, I'm talking about the mindset at newpage patrol. Sometimes we get patrollers who are thinking which deletion route is the most appropriate, and that's one of the paths that can lead to someone treating single sourced articles as unsourced etc. Adding categorisation as an option while

6889:

was 9 years ago and noted that he had only been in one show. The article from this year showed 11 subsequent roles in bluelinked shows, plus a mention of a band and movie. Those are obvious substantial changes, and a new discussion – including a search for post-2015 coverage – would be needed to

6504:

is a good example of why the candidate will ultimately make a great admin. We all make mistakes. We differ in how quickly we admit and correct them. Significa liberdade withdrew that nomination as soon as she saw evidence of notability, and speedy-closed it the same day. This is exemplary of the

6277:

to be a backdoor to deletion. Yet it clearly is. I've not run the numbers, but I'd be happy to bet that 80%+ of NPP moves to draftspace result in deletion due to them expiring in draft space. But to your larger point, if this user were following expected norms I'd be hesitant to oppose on that

6172:

to being indicted, which would bring up concerns regarding BLPCRIME). Second, while I do always do a BEFORE search to the extent possible, database and language barriers prevent me from conducting an exhaustive search, leading to some nominations being closed as keep based on sources I could not

5534:

removes all the sources, and two hours after that you receive a message saying that your contribution is not acceptable because it doesn't have any sources. Do you think you'd persevere with Knowledge? What if the sources weren't even removed, but just ignored (is in the first example I gave)? –

5495:

As SL acknowledges above, she was made aware that she was exceeding the accepted boundaries of draftification within her first week of reviewing, so ignorance of the guidelines is not an explanation. So the only explanations I am left with (and SL, I do appreciate any input or correction you can

5051:

with some reservations. On her merits, I think it's very likely that SL will be an excellent admin. I have bumped into her in content spots, and I have personally experienced her making an error, responding well to constructive criticism, and doing what she could to fix the mistake as quickly as

161:

When looking at Significa liberdade's experience, I could not help but think that she was more qualified than I was when I nominated myself back in December. She's active in areas that require you to think a lot, but she manages it with grace and skill. While everyone has their own strengths and

8856:

The disadvantage is that an article can be abandoned in a poor quality state. Once an article passes NPP the likelihood of it being looked at by someone with experience reduces and a NPPer has no idea what the intentions of the article creator is. The only other avenues to communicate that "the

7899:

I logged in today tentatively expecting to support, but now that there are some significant opposes, I'm going to take some time to digest what they say. I'm not going to stay in neutral, and I'm still leaning towards support. But I decided to post here for now, in order to bring up a different

7405:

Look, I don't want to pile on here: SL seems like a very nice person and useful community member--and is likely to pass regardless, so there's an argument for not doing any further quibbling. Buuuut...you do realize why that's not the most terribly re-assuring way to address the error in their

6379:

I do not agree with mass draftification of stubs, clearly a point on which we differ, and thus do not agree that there is a "natural draft candidate" as you appear to. If the articles were "straight copy-paste numbers", i.e. copyvios, then draftification is also not the right response, but G12.

5655:

I think you could certainly cast the claim—made by many in the section above—that SL's use of draftification is within the community norm as a statistical one. As I see it, I've at least tried to test that hypothesis, while Josh has just said "I think you picked the wrong sample for comparison"

4928:

The opposition here is just ridiculous. NPP has a backlog of nearly 10,000 articles with dozens and dozens of very poor articles created every day. It's actually disheartening to see an experienced, dedicated editor subject to such criticism for literally just doing their best to make Knowledge

4791:

after reading objections about AfD and draftifying activity, along with candidates responses/responsiveness and the reactions from some who even raised concerns. I think the candidate is acting in good faith, I'm not convinced that draftifying is such a big problem here, and I would expect this

7796:. As I created the Short Story article, I grabbed the lead from the main article, then customized it. Because I was focused primarily on the article's content, I forgot to include the attribution to the original Knowledge article, though I recognize this is still a copyright attribution error ( 5514:

Tao was a prominent brand that supplied to brands like River Island, targeting the rave scene, particularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Tao was known for its distinctive style of clothing that reflected the vibrant and eclectic culture of raves. Their designs often featured bold colors,

4173:

Looks strong in every respect and unusually strong in several. A common theme of the few opposes seems to be opposition to a common practice of NPP draftifying new articles than need something essential vs immediately taking them to their final disposition. IMHO it's not right to express an

3803:

to not encounter unsourced incomplete articles in article space, and it strikes me as odd to argue that being asked to work on an article in draft space rather than article space would cause any harm to editors or editor retention, though maybe I'm just dense), but mostly because I don't think

3445:

I never expected myself to participate in another RfA again -- but here I've felt the need to comment. Significa liberdade is an excellent New Page Patrol reviewer and while there may have been a few shake-ups, her work is largely a net positive. I find the opposes unconvincing, on a couple of

979:

is the bestselling author of more than 100 books. She’s a visionary storyteller, with millions of fans around the globe. Her writing is unprecedented and unlike anything on the market today with her suspenseful plots, unforgettable characters, and out-of-this-world settings. Her works are also

9398:

I think reasonable people can disagree about many things (whether that's draftification or other aspects of the project). I think Significa Liberdade is thoughtful, cares a lot about following current community norms and policy, and is here to build an encyclopedia. I wouldn't have offered to

7311:

I went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, the overall level of experience is a bit below where I want to see it for a candidate for the bit, especially when I've never crossed paths with them in any project space and therefore can't dismiss this general concern with more particular

1022:

In my opinion, a WikiProject Military History coordinator would not inherently be INVOLVED with the topic of military history as a whole. They also would not be INVOLVED if they closed military history-related AfDs, given that administrative actions are explicitly exempt, or when sending mass

664:

Although some key differences in genre conventions exist (e.g., audience, organization, language), I think the most significant differences that sometimes cause a disconnect relate to tone/purpose and source use. In academia, we’re (almost) always arguing something and trying to make a point.

591:

and too lax. This balancing act is even more challenging in the asynchronous, online environment where you can’t have a conversation with someone to make sure they understand the guidelines fully, which means they may err again. At this point, it can be helpful to point out specific, relevant

586:

Working with new editors requires a certain amount of patience, understanding, and guidance. Occasionally, I come across a bad actor, but most frequently, I work with editors who simply don’t know the rules and guidelines. Given this, it’s important to inform them about the expectations while

403:

Although my talk page and archives have a large number of notifications regarding deleted articles, the articles in question are rarely my own creations. While reviewing articles for NPP, I often edit articles that may be later nominated for deletion. For example, I might update formatting or

7844:

Thank you for responding - and sorry for putting my response in at the very last second. (FWIW, I don't think the crats will extend, so feel free to enjoy your new powers and not respond). If anything, you can consider this next paragraph merely as advise. Knowing that it's a failure to read

6818:

Yes, CSD does generally operate without discussion. The concern I have is that based on their history, the candidate does not have a track record of a clear understanding of an area they will clearly be involved in based on their responses and frequent involvement in deletion and patrolling.

5864:

There's quite a bit to respond to in these two comments, and Significa liberdade has told me off-wiki that she needs some time to put answers together. For now, I do want to point out that of her logged CSD G12s, that's basically the only one that was a mistag. One other one was removed by a

5056:

doesn't yet apply, but I am disappointed not to have seen her address these concerns either in general discussion or as an answer to Q21. I still hope to see it. Either way, I have confidence in all the rest that I know about her, the strength of her overall AfD record, and the wisdom of the

4725:

from experience. So I think she will learn from the experience of this RfA, and do just fine as an admin. She is clearly smart and thoughtful. I think the problems with the drafts and deletion come down to a pattern of trying to do too much, too quickly. So my advice if this RfA passes is to

4135:

Excellent candidate. Wikipedians' tolerance for substandard and poorly sourced articles runs along a spectrum, and I don't see Significa liberdade's actions at NPP/AfC as falling outside of, or even towards the end of, the deletion side of that spectrum. NPP work can be thankless work, as is

8404:

This will be my (third) time moving around my vote, but I've been on the fence about several things regarding draftifications in the past few days, and several strong and well-written opposes and neutrals in the last day or so have made me again change my mind. I wish you the best of luck.

1734:

find. These are exactly the actions I would hope an NPPer would take in the circumstances. The first !voters on the AfD insist the subject is notable, without providing any sources that could be used to establish this. The nominator remains patient and civil. A participant in the discussion

6666:! I appreciate and recognize your concern. During my time with NPP, I have not worked directly with userspace articles and have not nominated any userspace articles for deletion. Because of this, I would contact more experienced admins on this topic before deleting an article in userspace. 909:

is granted to editors who consistently create articles that are not nominated for deletion through AfD, CSD, or PROD and are not draftified – regardless of whether those articles are technically incomplete. The goal of AP is to lighten NPP’s load, which is drastically needed given that the

669:

on Knowledge. The differences in how academics and Wikipedians use sources differs, as well. The main difference I struggled with when getting started on Knowledge was using secondary sources rather than primary sources. In academia, we prefer using primary sources so we don’t end up with

3594:

with prejudice, meaning I'm unfortunately late both to the party and on time so I haven't had the time to read anything except the oppose section, thus my opinion may change. I have been crossing paths with Sig recently with the most notorious venue being her controversial nominations of

2913:

It says something good about how the nom spends their time here, or bad about how I spend my time here, but I haven't run into them before. That just means they don't lurk in the various sloughs of despond we have. That, plus noms, plus attitude when answering questions, is all I need.

972:

I admit I'm not entirely certain about the following response, and if I encountered this scenario, I would contact other admins to verify. After reviewing the policies, I think a userspace page could be deleted under G11 but not U5 if the userspace page was promotional and the editor had

9651:

Significa liberdade's (SL) use of draftify was discussed in the oppose section; the use of draft might be one of the least jarring actions a new page patroller can make. I try not to make unforced errors when doing new page patrol, but it has happened. Oddly enough, earlier this year SL

8203:

Everyone, not just Tryptofish, should have the opportunity to directly review the example. (A precedent of candidates self-describing conflicts without linking them just isn't workable, since such descriptions are too easily distorted.) Asilvering's perspective, while understandable, is

8145:

I just wanted you to know that the candidate is thinking about what she'd want to say here and has some things in mind. Hopefully you're willing to wait a little longer? She needs to get some rest. I just wanted to give you a heads up that your comment isn't being intentionally ignored.

4269:

I ended up not being convinced by the opposition. There may be some examples of less-than-ideal AfD noms or draftifications - but nobody is perfect, and on balance, they seem like a net positive to the slog that is the NPP backlog. Other than that, has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal.

8257:

I've just moved to Support, and I urge those editors who disagreed with providing specific examples when answering Q3 to look at what I said there. When SL provided that link just above, I could see her asking for advice about how to avoid making mistakes in the future. And that was

5228:

My review of this RFA and related links leads me to conclude the candidate has what it takes to succeed in the role. The opposes lead me to suggest that generally consensus in the areas they have concerns with is in practice more diffuse, broader, diffident, or context dependent. --

8599:

was not overturned just two years later, at least not according to anything that I can find. There was no misinformation in that article. Even if there had been, that's completely missing the point. Nobody is saying that all of Significa's draftifications or AfD noms were bad.

527:

Before I answer, I want to share my sympathies that you were unable to pursue further education. I believe higher education would greatly benefit from more diverse perspectives that are often excluded due to systemic barriers. The direct answer to your question is three-fold:

531:

Prior to the pandemic and starting my PhD, I had been active in my community in various capacities. Unfortunately, when I moved, I was disconnected from that community and my new community. I suppose Knowledge felt like a way I could continue giving back with my time and

6980:(and, as a sensibility matter, reviewing the orignal deletion discussion and ensuring that the new/recent version addresses the concerns there raised). The prohibition against re-creating previously deleted content is against substantially re-creating previously deleted 404:

references, add maintenance tags, or remove copyright violations. Because I am thought to have significantly contributed to the article, I receive notifications when they are nominated for deletion. Of the 560 articles I have created, only 5 have later been deleted (see

867:

isn't merely lacking but does not exist at all. Knowledge is a unique encyclopedic project full of incomplete information, and it’s up to a bunch of volunteers to try to create a valuable resource. I’m impressed with how much good we’ve done in the past couple decades!

6168:. Looking through my recent “failed” AFD nominations, I notice two patterns. First, some discussions/nominations were more contentious and policy-based, demonstrating the need for community input (e.g., discerning whether Lauren Chen was notable enough for an article 4991:

extrapolations from personal experience (however extensive that may be). But that's a discussion for another venue. Here, I just wanted to challenge AusLander on the implication that a large backlog justifies makes NPPers immune to criticism – that's an old canard. –

2097:

I'd like to reiterate my support for SL as an editor who is active both in the AfD area and at NPP/AFC. These are difficult areas to work at. It may have been better for SL to wait a bit before running to sharpen some of their skills, however let's remember this is a

6796:

Well her answer to Question 1 starts "My primary reason for wanting to become an administrator is to use the mop to clean up messes I find rather than simply flagging messes so someone else can clean them." so it does look like she would be speedy deleting articles.

6308:, which, while scarcely at featured article level certainly wouldn't be speedily deleted. I strongly disagree that the community believes stubs with significant content should be summarily draftified, and I am entirely uncomfortable with draftification being used to 1019:). In general, however, an admin must recuse themselves from a dispute when their history interferes with their ability to act impartially as an administrator; the more closely related or more extensive the past editing is, the more likely an admin is to be INVOLVED. 4003:- Candidate seems reasonable. She has given answers to optional questions and even direct criticisms (which speaking on the RfA page at all when conventional wisdom says not to is commendable within of itself, really) in a level manner. We need more administrators. 3623:

Changing to weak support due to SilverLocust's concerns well said. However, I also concur with Kylietastic that I'd like to see how this goes in the future and whether Sig's familiarity with deletion policy will be shown to have improved. I've read everything now.

2377:

Noting my thoughts after the opposes. I don't see a reason to believe Significa liberdade will abuse the tools. There is valid feedback in the oppose section, but I trust that the candidate will use the tools responsibly and carefully for the benefit of the site.

4303:

I just wanted to echo the concern about badgering. I have yet to vote in this one (and may not), but I do find the badgering disappointing as well. Responses by the candidate are one thing...prolonged engagement by the noms (and others) are something else again.

8975:

Just to be clear, I would be in favour of (a) trying to remove the stigma around moving an article to draft and (b) having firmer guidelines about when it is desirable and when it is not. I think it's an useful tool that we should probably all use more often.

6842:. Significa put a speedy deletion tag because of recreation against a nine-year old AFD, even though the person was notable by now. I suggest carefully looking at pages before speedy deleting them. And besides the other comments by opposers, I suggest oppose. 8740:

s issue of whether the federal district court overseeing the sentencing state court has the jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus. Thus, my choice to exclude this minor prong of the decision hardly qualifies as "misinformation" because the verdict in

8114:

knows how to navigate a content dispute. If RfA participants can find something by examining the candidate's talk page, then the candidate can also save them a step by linking to it, and, by linking to it, demonstrating how they knew what to do or not do. --

7342:

per Joe, Owen, and others. I am concerned by candidate's zeal for deletion and would hope that an administrator would be more patient with the process. Given the candidate's responses to questions, I would say this is a "see you later" more than anything. —

7074:

You do realize she's created 550 articles? She's also improved hundreds of articles written by other people (see her answer to question 2), which goes beyond categorizing stubs like you suggest here. I'm not sure how much more content work someone could do.

7009:

Feel free to badger/reply to me about this in other venues/on my talk page since this RFA is coming to a close, however, as a NPP reviewer, being expected to go outside of wikipedia to search for an archived version of a article on a random website or using

5462:

Even putting those aside, there is the first example – an article citing 19 sources draftified because it has "no sources". But I don't agree that the others are within community norms. The community's minimum expectations for sourcing are stated plainly in

2430:

Also, there is a assertion that a high draftification rate somehow implies that the candidate is out of line, and consistently overdraftifies articles. I disagree with this assertion, being a outlier does not imply that they are doing anything wrong here.

7765:

thing. Considering the amount of work the editor has done in content work in general, I wouldn't write off somebody for a single mistake. Its almost orwellian in its consquence, when it seems inconsequential. Even something that picked up in copyedit.

1011:, an admin can be considered INVOLVED with a mainspace topic area under certain circumstances, and cannot use their admin tools in that area. A "topic area" can be as narrow as a single article, where the rules are quite clear, or as broad as an entire 2751:... two nominators who have been nothing but a credit to the project themselves since getting the mop, one of them even recently named Wikimedian of the Year (sorry, had to mention that), and a lot of other high-quality support make this an easy call. 1794:

improve based on it. SL's responses and temperament when dealing with the criticisms here have been exceptional and exactly what we'd want out of an administrator. I'm more confident than ever that they'll do well as an admin if given the opportunity.

9448: 870:

Given this, I think it’s valuable to explain why I create book articles without always including an plot summary. As stated in my nomination statement, I have been drawn to creation on Knowledge to help address certain known information gaps (e.g.,

6527:

before the nomination, or lumping in over 30 articles into one AfD, simply isn't (in my eyes) the sort of judgement I'd want to see in a sysop. These are elementary errors I'd expect to see in a relative newbie in NPP, not a candidate for the mop.

6278:

basis. But they don't appear to be (per Joe Roe's statement). So that is enough of a concern for me to oppose this RfA. And, thank you for the comment, I think I wasn't as clear as I should have been and I appreciate you pointing that out to me.

285: 487:

Some administrators believe that it is a good practice to "procedurally" decline "stale" unblock requests based solely on the fact that no admin cared to attend to them for an extended period of time. What are your thoughts on that subject? Would

7574:: To clarify, I have not determined that the remaining 23 books are notable. Rather, I have not yet spent time running each one through Newspaper Archive, given that it's not my top priority. Once I do, I will likely be listing them back at AfD. 408:). The deletion rate for drafts is higher, though this is skewed by the number of published drafts. Other drafts are often deleted because I started a draft article on a subject I thought could be notable but didn’t end up finishing the draft. 5438:. :) Although I did not respond to Liz’s message on my Talk page, I did significantly change my reviewing practices. I will note that I received Liz's comment during my first week reviewing. Since then, I have applied all feedback received. 5076:

diminish with time but never disappear. I think most editors with the right temperament naturally undergo the "taking on responsibility" process that SL describes in her answer, and I think there's good evidence she has the right temperament.

535:

I believe work-school-life balance is important, and we all should have something in our life beyond work and school that brings joy and meaning to our lives. I am fortunate in my circumstances to have excess time in the day to devote to such

8331:

I think they'd likely be a good admin, but I have run across their New Page Patrols before and had questions about the honesty of their draftifications independent of the examples already provided by Joe. For example, I decimated the article

3921:. Seems like a generally reasonable individual and I did not know that this user was not already an administrator. I am somewhat concerned regarding the draftification and backdoor deletions, but I don't think that the admin toolset really 4050:

75% at AfD, and doing new page patrols one is expected to be nominating a lot. AfD also isn't deletion, it is a discussion about if an article is suitable for inclusion. Lastly, I've often done a BEFORE search and turned up nothing, while

5475:

or any of the flowcharts included there. Based on several years of regularly patrolling NPP reviews and draftified pages, I can tell you that it is not something most reviewers do. Even after I posted my comment above, she draftified

8857:

present quality of the article is not acceptable" would be AfD (which is over the top) or jamming on a dozen or so citation needed etc tags. I'd tend to think draftification is less hostile than the latter (especially because as per

7983:

On the one hand, the RfA spotlight is harsh, and no one besides the candidate has consented to it, so RfA is not an appropriate venue to scrutinize anyone else. On the other, conflicts necessarily involve multiple parties, and Q3 is

3675:- competent, active and helpful from what I can see in their contributions. Not worried about a few one-off mistakes noted in the oppose section, nor with their draftifying new pages if that falls within current community norms. -- 353:

I’d welcome such questions. I can understand editors potentially finding the questions to be stressful, but I also think they can provide opportunities for the editor to showcase their personality and how they respond to unexpected

6481:

doesn't inspire confidence either, though that was at least speedily withdrawn. I would expect significantly better judgement from an admin than what the candidate has shown. Sorry, but I can't support right now on this evidence.

759:, the creator's use of the draft space communicated to me that they preferred working on the article in the draft space rather than the main space. Upon reflection, I should have contacted the creator to ensure that was the case. 8075:

Well folks, I guess we are progressing from the RfA problem of badgering opposes, to badgering neutrals. Honestly, I think you are all trying too hard to find reasons to nitpick, without really engaging with the basic idea. It's

4635:

I have considered the opposes, but I do not feel that Significa liberdade's draftifications are outside of community norms. I trust that she will take on board the feedback here and act with caution when it comes to deletions.--

2314:

I've read the opposes and they don't persuade me to change my vote. On the individual draftification examples, I don't feel that any of them (or all of them combined) are so egregious as to be disqualifying; I agree with most of

1215: 5869:), and the only way to know whether an article is G4-eligible without being an admin is to nominate it, so it's no surprise that there are some declined nominations – it's one of the reasons she expressed interest in the tools. 5770:. If we did there'd be very few new articles left. And AfC reviewing is wildly inconsistent these days -- it's not a good barometer of anything. That article was split off from a mainspace article and should be in mainspace now. 4193:

Strong track record of content creation; candidate with good communication skills, and while acknowledging opposes below, agree with Ponyo above and feel that the candidate would be a net benefit to the project with the tools.

1209: 9551:

is a great thing to try and follow, but making a stray bad nom to AFD here and there isn't the end of the world. It's a community process, and it puts more eyes on the article to determine things like sourcing and notability.

8793:(very vague) guidelines given and do not seem to have caused any harm. If these examples of bad behaviour seem weak, there's not a lot of evidence there to oppose, especially if we are trying to argue that given admin powers, 6299:

per Hobbit. I have only looked at very recent actions, and there are some clear red flags for me regarding adminship. Looking quickly through the list of draftified articles from September, I'm seeing quite a few, for example

5115:– per Tryptofish, mainly. While there are valid concerns raised in the oppose section, the candidate appears to be open to feedback and willing to learn from experience, so I trust that she will be mindful of these concerns. – 4733:, and don't make hasty decisions. RfA should not be about whether someone has made mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. It should be about whether they can be trusted to learn from past mistakes, and do better in the future. -- 3405:

Oh heck yes. I don't think we've had any on-wiki interactions, but she seems like a truly dedicated Wikipedian. Working in the NPP mines is a challenging and thankless task - amazing job, and don't mind the perennial opposes.

1067:

Overall, I’ve appreciated the feedback received during this RFA. If you ever have questions, comments, and/or concerns about my ongoing editing (whether in an admin position or not), please let me know. I will always hear you

4249:

Like other supports, I find the nominee to be competent and knowledgable. Good luck with your PhD btw. I am not holding our processes at NPP such as draftification against anyone working in the area - they are what they are.

5057:

distinguished nominators. I hope also to signal to anyone considering adminship to go for it (I'm available as a nominator), as we need waaaaaay more admins, and it would take flaws much larger than these for me to oppose.

953:

I will note that we are in the midst of a backlog drive. Last night, there were over 10,200 articles, and we’re approaching 10,000 as I publish this, so apologies in advance if the numbers are inaccurate when you visit the

5247:

Though as per usual they should have done some plant article editing so I could have jumped in with support eagerly and much earlier. Why don't more candiates kowtow to this most important of all Wiki factions?</humor:

1627:

entry with no preconceived notions, and quickly got a strong impresssion of a productive and knowledgable user who is both kind and informative in their interactions with other users. Seems like good admin material to me.

5130:

down because she is ultimately responsible for her edits? I'm satisfied. Supporting mostly per Firefangledfeathers, Clovermoss's comments in the general comments section, asilvering's re-affirmation, and hey man im josh.

7521:, Cunard found sources through Newspapers.com, which does not work on my devices for whatever reason, basically making it a database I do not have access to. As I stated in A21, my goal of bringing articles to AFD is to 7258:. (I was originally an unexplained support.) I don't expect any big problems whenever SL becomes an admin. I have some concerns about very recent CSDs, including the R2 where not all of the history was eligible for R2 ( 7525:

as many articles as possible. Sometimes, that requires further input from the community. Again, I don't mean to quibble, and I don't expect your vote to change. I just wanted to clarify. I hope you enjoy your weekend!

4456:

the nominating statements and answers to the questions demonstrate that Significa liberdade has a need for admin rights, existing trust from the community, and a large volume of good work in areas that need attention.

5971:

highlighted by Joe, I find it necessary to oppose this talented candidate. As Dylan620 said, when Significa liberdade becomes an admin either now or in the near future, I urge greater caution in new page patrolling.

9423:

I am not sure if I'll !vote in this RfA but I do want to make a general comment regarding our current draftification practices since draftification is a topic of substantial concern in the Oppose section here. The

7942:

have happened to you. If an RfA candidate has had someone post something confrontational on their user talk page, and then responded in a way that deescalated the problem, that's the kind of thing I'd like to see.

5976:

allows patrollers to act an hour after an article's creation, but it does not obligate them to do so when the page shows signs of activity, especially given the vast backlog of days/months-old unreviewed articles.

4929:

better. There's so many poorly sourced and poor quality articles already here - why are some editors determined to add to that? I thought RfA was supposed to have improved from its days of nit-picking witch hunts?

3333:

I'm quite a new to this editor and had to check her contributions. She seems eminently qualified to become an admin. I'm not convinced by the oppose comments. I could yak on about it, but too tired at the moment.

346:

Some people find "fun" questions not strictly related to your suitability as a sysop to be a nice distraction from the stress of RfA. Others find them to be an unpleasant annoyance. Do you want people to ask them?

7987:

Ultimately, I handled the situation for my RfA by listing enough examples for Q3 so as not to put too much of a spotlight on any one, and by generally avoiding directly naming other editors I referenced in Q3 and

5312:

While Significa liberdade strikes me as a very conscientious editor in other areas, I've unfortunately had significant concerns about her NPP reviewing for some time. Specifically, in a little over a year she has

859:

If someone is creating articles that would survive AfD but are consistently tagged as missing key parts (e.g. a plot summary for a book article), and they request the autopatrolled permission, would you grant it?

5419:

hour that is the boundary for draftification. Myself, I'm a pretty slow writer, so I don't at all like that one hour is our rule, and think it should be extended, but I can't fault SL for following that rule. --

9656:

about my alacritous draftification at NPP. SL was right and I took their advice. Above, editors are advising SL about other deletion-related mistakes while patrolling. I hope that SL will speak to the concerns.

3600: 724: 539:

Contributing to Knowledge has intermingled with my studies. For instance, I have created several articles for notable academics, and occasionally, I have created and/or expanded content related to a subject I’m

8095:

Can't you think of times when you were working on content, and some editors wanted to do "A", while others wanted to do "B", and they were at odds, and then you suggested "C" which satisfied both sides and got

6976:

article was deleted long ago, it is not necessary to examine the originally deleted version in the first place; what is necessary is sufficent high-quality sourcing and proper writing that complies with policy

8044:

Do you actually want people to respond to troll posts (to supposedly "deescalate")? I get nonsense threats, vandal/troll posts, etc. all the time. Why should I bother responding to them? If anything that just

7875:

was a unilateral decision and they have the right to revert it. In many cases, draftification has the same outcome as a speedy delete since users may not know what to do next and simply abandon their drafts.

3799:— phenomenal editor and all the evidence suggests she'll make a great admin. I'm unswayed by the draftification arguments, maybe because I have no problem with draftification personally (it seems better for 5624:

That is indeed the scientific method. If there's some frustration in my response, it's because nobody in the support section is being pushed to provide rigorous statistical analysis to justify their !vote.

5167:

I first became aware of Editor Significa when I vetted her for the Editor of the Week award in July of '23. Nothing leads me to believe that she will be anything less than competent, focused and energetic.

943:

are officially pages I created this month, but they were split from the author’s article as the author wasn’t notable except for the one book. Since receiving feedback in AFD, I have kept the book with the

7369: 5376:

Again, this is not a comprehensive analysis – just from clicking around in logs from the last month. Whatever you think about draftification as a general practice, contradictory or nonsensical reasons are

5381:

and not something I would expect from any moderately experienced NPPer. If SL maintained a similar error rate with the admin tools, we could be looking at quite a lot of damage to both content and editor

9143: 8465:

The alternative to draftifying an article for an incorrect reason (like not listing sources when it lists nineteen sources) isn't AfD, it's leaving it alone. What are the disadvantages of that approach?

5922:

I usually recommend a check at the Wayback Machine. It'll fail for an article that went directly from NPP to AFD and was deleted there, with no time spent non-noindexed, but does work most of the time.

3068:

their judgement and I have confidence that Significa liberdade will have taken the concerns expressed onboard and will proceed with due caution in using the tools. I am therefor reaffirming my support. -

6970:

is rather immaterial, when others can be found in seconds with any Internet search. And "could not possibly have had access to the deleted version" is wrong because Internet Archive usually has a copy,

9566:

As Significa has already stated in this discussion, she does do a BEFORE before her AfD nominations. I object to GrammarDamner's statement that she did not do her due diligence and that these articles

7174:. I am concerned by the issues raised here by other editors. I think this editor needs to spend more time reflecting on Knowledge policies and guidelines, and extend their knowledge and understanding. 8765:

The NPP flowchart isn't a wikipedia policy or guideline so it doesn't really authorise or unauthorise anything. There's an unfortunate lack of policy or guideline on the use of draftification. Even

6750:(unexpectedly) The issues raised by Joe & Richie, of very recent cases in the exact area where the candidate intends to concentrate, are too concerning. Some more experience is needed, I think. 6864:

accuracy cannot be improved by "looking carefully" since Significa could not possibly have had access to the deleted version of the article to compare the sources and text present in that version.

292:

per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

3925:

anything related to that inasmuch as it doesn't require advanced permissions, and as such I don't think this user will abuse tools in that regard. So, on balance, I land in the support camp. —

3558:

I've learned plenty from Significa liberdade's work at new page patrol and have confidence in her ability despite the concerns raised due to her accuracy in the sheer volume of pages reviewed.

2083:- I've seen them around and they seem like a really solid candidate. I give them my support with no hesitation whatsoever. Has the right temperament and experience. Thank you for volunteering! 227:, I often encounter potential issues that need to be addressed by someone with the mop and/or could be supported by administrative tools. For instance, I often encounter articles I suspect are 7976:

back in February, I considered (and discussed with my noms) the question of how to provide specific examples without putting editors with whom I've disagreed on blast. I also once experienced

2404:, I've seen them around in the NPP server and have had positive interactions across the board with them, both in the context of AFC and NPP. I have no doubt that they will be a capable admin. 8660:

Bottom line: I also agree with many of Significa's draftifications and AfD noms, but that doesn't change the fact that she has made too many mistakes to be given deletion tools at this time.

7934:

I'll explain it this way. You can get into a conflict without having started it. You can be editing constructively, not doing anything wrong, and still have someone get furious at you. (How

397:

Looking over your talk page and its archives, I'm seeing a large number of articles and drafts that ended up being deleted. Is there a reason for there having been so many of these? Thanks.

1049:

Many of the people opposing this RfA are focused on a single area: your approach to deletions. If you pass this RfA anyway, what will you change in your approach to that area of Knowledge?

223:

My primary reason for wanting to become an administrator is to use the mop to clean up messes I find rather than simply flagging messes so someone else can clean them. Through my work with

5467:

and all of these articles met them. There is no policy or guideline that says that articles need to cite more than one source. It is not listed as an accepted reason for draftification in

7021:

addresses all the issue brought up in the previous AFD (which this did not, and was why I initially responded to this oppose). If this check fails, I will then go on to perform a cursory

6143: 5865:

non-admin (even though it did look to be G12 eligible), a few more were rewritten to avoid deletion, but nearly all of her G12s hit the mark. Both of the A10s were months ago (and she's

4093:- Maybe keeping an eye on AfDs etc. I don't think this is a problem that can't be handled provided there's another set of eyes checking their actions and as they acclimitize themselves. 1338: 4531:. No concerns about deletions, some concern about the candidate really only having picked up Knowledge space editing in the last year or so, but I've been crying out for more admins in 113:– I couldn't be happier to be nominating Significa liberdade for adminship, a solid content writer and friendly backroom contributor since 2021. I first came across her work when I saw 5656:

without bothering to propose or carry out a more appropriate one. But the double standard applied to oppose vs. support !votes is typical of RfA, and not really worth discussing again.

1333: 6547:"Digress" means to stray off-topic, not disagree. It's usually used at the end of a tangent with "blah blah blah, but I digress ." I've made the same mistake before... but I digress. 4174:

opinion on this common and accepted practice via opposing an excellent candidate for following a common and accepted practice while serving Knowledge in a difficult job. Sincerely,

3692:. Great, very trustworthy editor. I disagree with draftification as a practice, but whether I like it or not it is a community norm and the way they use it is in line with the norm. 6248: 3120:– Great work so far on Knowledge, including maintenance, and no reason to think this'll change if she gets a mop. The closest thing to an issue would be the high number of declined 6469:

Candidate's approach/judgement about deletion is unconvincing with several poor draftifications and CSD taggings pointed out above, not to mention recent poor AfD nominations like

914:, and has not been cleared since October 2022. As such, if an editor is consistently creating articles that pass review in NPP (i.e., not nominated for deletion or draftified, per 6091:

deserving of draftification when our consensus suggests the opposite: experienced editors can be expected to build articles knowing the need to add multiple sources. For example,

1120:

decide to nominate articles and redirects for speedy deletion under this criteria? If you'd like to explain with an example, I'm particularly curious about these recent declines:

3946:

NPP needs more admins. I also clicked through the examples in the oppose section over draftification and see that issue as more about improving edit summaries than substance. -

4493:-- great responses, great edits. Maybe a bit too fast on the draft button for some, but we definitely need more level-headed people willing to take the mop, so go take it! -- 731: 7093:

doing New Page Patrol is one way to become less heavy handed with deletion tagging, as often the best option is to categorise rather than draftify or even mark as patrolled.

3210:

Just want to indicate that I’ve been following and though I understand the concerns, I don’t think they rise to a level that makes me anticipate SL would be a problem admin.

5512:

The sources that were removed by another editor didn't mention the brand at all. I don't think it's out of bounds to draftify something like that. In its entirety it reads:

1454:! I've seen Significa around in NPP circles and admire her commitment to the project and her consistently collegial attitude. I feel she would put the mop to excellent use. 8920:

as of its G4 tag was about things that happened after the AFD, and how challenges of G4s where the AFD is more than three or four years old are almost always successful at

7191:

per Joe Roe and Owen. While I appreciate that we need more admins and I hold no judgement against her as a person, the issues raised are too concerning for me to ignore. ―

6932:

wasn't the best choice of criteria. However, that's not for the reasons of the original oppose, but because there is a valid reason why new sources could potentially exist.

1016: 133: 7517:

searches an editor should do before nominating for AFD. In each AFD nomination discussed above, I searched for sources far beyond the minimum requirements. In the case of

6134:, all from the last few weeks, make me worry about the candidate's due diligence in nominating for deletion. Those aren't isolated cases; going back a few months, we have 5641:

That's true, but none of the support votes made statistical claims. (And I thought the scientific method was testing a hypothesis, not believing it until it's disproven.)

4136:

demonstrated by some of the opposes. She is quick to take the concerns of others on board, is a good communicator and listener, and I think she will make a fine admin. --

1997:. Clear use case for the tools, even temperament. I looked into the candidate's record some time ago, and I was impressed by what I saw: I was just too slow to follow up. 6095:

justifies draftification by NPP if "the page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor" (alongside other criteria), clearly contrasted against experienced editors.

1700: 678:, secondary sources are preferred, which is understandable. Going between the two realms, it’s important to remember the overarching goals, which can help bridge the gap. 6397: 1778: 8336:

due to copyright violations. I believe I could have had it G12-ed, but the user who created it was obviously acting in good faith, the island was clearly notable under

7862: 7839: 7812: 266:

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?

8894:

Withdrawn with regret. Regardless of the outcome here, I do hope that the nominee takes the above advice into consideration in their use of the tools moving forward.

8353: 5089: 9723: 1185: 1064:

This doesn’t mean it was a bad nomination; it means the community came together to save and improve a bad article. I wish there were better, easier ways to do this.

647:

Academic and Knowledge writing styles differ. What do you wish academics and non-academics alike would understood better to bridge these differing background? ~ 🦝

8924:.) I'm not entirely happy with the answer to my Q15 followup; I'd have accepted something like "ack, I missed that version in the history" - after all, everyone, 4052: 9080: 9066: 8749:, but I was operating under the understanding that the detailed NPP flowchart only authorizes draftification if a Google search does not return reliable sources. 3782:- only slight reservations from the opposes, but I hope that Significa liberdade takes on board the criticism there and modifies their approach in these areas. - 5777:(which I know because I wrote it) is not to draftify an article while the creator is working on it, with an hour given as a rule of thumb. This is reiterated in 4083: 2427:

of all of the examples fall well below the threshold for significance required by most scientific methods. (5 misdraftifications out of 1221 is 0.40%, below 5%).

9561: 9538: 9518: 9493: 9388: 9362: 6696: 6678: 4617:

be harmless. It is up to the community, not the candidate, to make sure draftification works as intended, so that people like Significa can use it as intended.

2255: 7775: 7759: 7705: 5729:

You can make the argument that draftification is hostile to newcomers but I think that's an issue with the process, not the actions of this particular editor.

5636: 5619: 5605: 5002: 4985: 231:

eligible, but without access to deleted revisions, my best option is often to add the page to the backlog. I also encounter articles that have previously been

6813: 1803: 9686: 9582: 9415: 8271: 8252: 8231: 8198: 7977: 6135: 5450: 5139: 980:

innovative, utilizing new technologies to create interactive fiction that bring the reader along on the journey, making every read a new, exciting adventure.

973:

significantly edited pages outside of the userspace. For example, if a user had around 500 total edits, the following could be deleted under G11 but not U5:

199: 9708: 9570:. I think all her AfDs were worth a discussion and I'd argue that Aaron Liu's and ScottishFinnishRadish's support votes are good at explaining why that is. 9096: 7586: 7566: 7538: 7505: 7462: 6146:, and others. I commend the candidate for promptly withdrawing her nomination in several AfDs, but many of the others could have been avoided with a proper 5552: 5016: 4970: 3599:

and Chen's associate. As a member of A25D (link on my userpage), I !voted keep. However, I do not think that this shows a criminal lack of BEFORE: For one,

9238:

least a full sentence on both the comment and the edit summary! Good thing I refreshed by watchlist page. It's my luckiest time ever at RfA and Knowledge!

8394: 7109: 7087: 6204: 785: 114: 9666: 8426:

per concerns raised by Hobit and Tryptofish. Not a bad person by any means, I just hold the same concerns posed by the response to Q3 and hasty NPP work.

6657: 6635: 5878: 5706: 5566: 5545: 5507: 4329: 771: 163: 7992:

discussion outside this RfA on Q3 expectations, and the balance of allowing scrutiny of the candidate while avoiding scrutiny of others, might be useful.

7973: 6106: 6082: 6067: 6038: 4355:- There are valid concerns raised by the oppose voters, but I am satisifed with SL's responses to the questions and to those concerns. Happy to support! 9588:

discussing. You may object, but that won't remove the notability nor the references from the articles mentioned by other editors in the oppose section.

9442: 9273: 6919: 6185: 5993:

You should have disclosed that you were the author of that article. After looking at it as part of our discussion below, I disagree it was "premature."

5650: 5610:

Well that's pretty dismissive of a reasonable point to consider. "My number is right until you prove it wrong", is that what you're essentially saying?

4849: 3219: 1587: 9616: 9599: 8797:

In the Braden case SL accepted the return to mainspace without moving to AfD the article. I find it very hard to believe SL would have speedy-deleted.

8769:

is explicitly not a policy or guideline and it's "reasons to move" are written as not exhaustive. I think if a google search suggests reliable sources

8216: 7675:, which is troubling due to its promotional nature, and the fact it was copied from text she didn't cite. This is a dealbreaker for me, unfortunately. 6959: 6905: 6877: 5917: 5898: 3827: 9644: 9226: 8851: 7038: 7000: 6823: 6791: 6582: 6558: 6372: 6139: 5585: 3077: 2938: 2608: 2444: 2020: 604: 420: 84: 9678: 9307: 8760: 8725: 8702: 8686: 8671: 8655: 8575: 8546: 8525: 8363:. I want to continue my support, and maybe I will go back to support, but the opposition raise good points that I feel I cannot continue my support. 8023: 7952: 7929: 6018: 6002: 5967: 5792: 5360: 5325: 4879: 2030:. I trust her to be a good admin. New admins and old admins need each other to be accountable, and she would be a good fresh admin for a fresh time. 723:

Given that the mainspace article was good, I would reject the R2 and revert the cross-namespace redirect. If the draft were awaiting review, I would

656: 9473: 9333: 9169: 9155: 8173: 8158: 8123: 8108: 7967: 5356:– but is there really any doubt that a family producing three prime ministers of Japan is notable? And if there is, why is it in draftspace not AfD? 5007:

Where did I suggest it made people "immune to criticism"? I'm saying the criticism in this case is wholly unfair, not that criticism is prohibited.

4311: 2394: 2129: 1752: 1655: 122: 9048: 8929:

careful; and try to remember that, unlike page protection and even blocks, there's no such thing as an entirely uncontroversial deletion (I've had

8037: 6436: 5391:

know whether her continued overuse of draftify on articles that, at worst, have minor content problems, is carelessness or a disagreement with the

4421:

per Ponyo, SFR, Josh and others. I have read through the opposes but do not see anything that causes alarm or suggests they will abuse the tools.

1172: 210:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

8806: 8783: 8611: 8590: 7441: 6541: 6514: 6358: 6195:#5 that does not apply (i.e., the author is not at that level of significance, which is obvious because none of his other books are blue linked). 3635: 9234: 9182: 7400: 7365: 6641: 6619: 6615: 6601: 6501: 6478: 5927: 5689: 5528: 5429: 5387: 8237: 4161: 2328: 1116:

tag, being able to rely only on archive sites, mirrors, and looking through the previous AFD discussion. Could you please explain to me how you

715: 7788:. This comes down to a Knowledge attribution oversight rather than copy-pasting from an outside source without attribution. If you look at the 6389: 6342: 6287: 6267: 6131: 5671: 5317:. That number alone should raise eyebrows (for context, last year's most prolific reviewer, who reviewed ten times as many articles as SL, has 9130: 8970: 8003: 7387: 2477: 746: 9247: 9014:

I cannot recall interacting with the user. They are fairly new and this meant our peak times never crossed, so I won't hold it against them.

8509: 8477: 8089: 8070: 5343: 5339: 4920: 4068: 4056: 2265:: It is a rare delight to encounter someone who spends more time improving an article than just slapping templates "needs improvement". ~ 🦝 2154: 1512:

i actually kind of just assumed they were an admin already... either way, i like these nominators and the answers to the questions above. :)

9635:. This is probably because I almost only draftify when there are no sources or severe promotional text problems, not for notability issues. 9459: 9293: 8871: 8495: 6029:

states "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is acceptable for mainspace"?

5738: 2179:: Prolific producer of high-quality content with both subject matter and tool expertise. What more can we ask for in a prospective admin? ~ 66: 9205: 7684: 5070: 4696: 4510:. Opposers bring up reasonable concerns, but I don't see these as disqualifying after reading through the page. The candidate is obviously 4279: 4215:

fool, and I think we should always err on the side of optimism in any admin vote — we are not short of ways to remove failing admins imho.

1699:

for quite some time and can attest that she is kind, helpful, patient, and possessing of multitudinous clues. As soon as it no longer felt

902:). If I do not include a plot summary, I add the {{no plot}} maintenance tag so another editor can more easily find the article to add it. 149: 9343:. Is it still down? Is there a link to a discussion somewhere about fixing it? I'd be interested in helping to fix it if it's still down. 8997:

want admins to understand that, and to understand that evidence like Joe presents is a problem when they see it in other people's logs. —

8985: 8821: 8716:

have, and you're welcome to your opinion, but it's a minority opinion. As CM said to you below, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

8322: 7250: 5903:"Non-admins have no way to check G4 other than tagging it." They can see how long ago the previous AfD was, and if it has been some time, 5753: 3993: 3504: 3251: 2995:

of this candidate, CM has been kind and communicative with me. I hope the candidate will be more like CM after becoming an administrator.

2212:

I've only run across their work a few times but it's always been high quality. Reviewing their articles and edits all I can say is "WOW"!

2204: 1634: 1507: 1179: 9023: 8623:) that is the subject of the Knowledge article I linked to. That Congress amended the law in 1950 to (at least partly) overrule the 1948 7884: 7166: 6984:, not against creating substantially new and better content that happens to cover the same subject better and within policy constraints. 6886: 6474: 6470: 6127: 6123: 4914: 4604: 4362: 1719: 8842:

Not every time, but regular reviewers will typically tell you that draftification and AfD are often alternative options to one another.

7069: 6418: 4008:

be taken and reviewed in stride. I do not believe the issues stated combined with candidates attitude warrant withholding the toolkit. —

3955: 2240: 1910: 1476: 1396: 9741: 8380: 5238: 3938: 3897: 3667: 2041: 1771: 9006: 7121:- based on the concerns raised by Joe and Hobit, this editor seems too deletion- and draftify-happy for extra powers to be advisable. 5660:

than the most prolific reviewers, twenty-three times more often than her peers, and ten times more often than the average reviewer. –

4835: 3112: 2879: 2852: 2709: 2555: 498:

At this time, I am not interested in blocking/unblocking users. As such, I would neither decline nor accept a “stale” unblock request.

187:

I accept this nomination and confirm I have no alternate accounts, I have never and will never edit for pay, and I am open to recall.

9382: 9327: 9112: 7244: 5085: 5066: 4687: 4645: 3863: 3417: 3234: 3159: 2739: 1989: 1239: 1165: 178: 105: 6742: 6495: 5988: 5744:

is not a mistake. This is also part of the built in behaviour of the move to draft script - it does a one hour check for new edits.

5300: 4947:

Regardless, I don't think many editors want new page reviewers to summarily execute other people's work for being "crappy". We have

4938: 3550: 3368: 3205: 2814: 2671: 2460: 1866: 1737:

the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity

1615: 1565: 1433: 805: 8418: 7617: 7410:

articles she nominated all in one mass nom, without apparently doing more than a slap-dash BEFORE analysis for a couple of them....

7285: 6851: 6052:

when they choose to patrol the front of the queue where the risk of trampling active editing is much higher. I hardly see how this

4766: 4668: 4582: 4127: 3569: 3344: 3191: 3062: 2923: 2794: 2760: 2417: 2295: 2058: 2006: 1969: 1651:

I am aware of the opposes and do find them concerning, but they aren't enough to sway me to support or neutral given her response.

205: 8903: 7914: 7746:

Now this isn't the biggest example, but it's word for word, and the claim is taken directly from the company website in a massive

7656: 4818: 4742: 4564: 4502: 4393: 3913: 3701: 3586: 3045: 3004: 2986: 2777: 2656: 2372: 2092: 1712: 1646: 1493: 1416: 272:

Disagreements naturally arise on Knowledge as they do in real life. My goal in any situation is to approach with a level head and

7356: 6719: 6394:

Replying to myself, considering the term "natural draft candidate". I clicked on "random" and the first two articles were these:

5859: 5119: 4854:

It would be nice to see no badgers, but considering what has happened in the oppose/badger section this support !vote deserves a

4708: 4653:. Everybody makes mistakes. Overall, I think she will do fine as an administrator and I trust the judgment of the nominators. 4627: 4466: 4185: 3880: 3774: 3684: 3618: 3534: 3397: 3308: 2639: 2539: 2512: 2274: 2223: 2171: 1883: 1675: 1531: 1359: 121:; she has eight other DYKs, plus dozens more articles covering authors, poets, academics, and the occasional sportsperson :) she 7483:. And, I promise I'm not seeking to be snarky here, but there's a reason that section of the AfD guidelines is named as it is. 7334: 7229: 7209: 6772: 6727:

per the deletion concerns. Yes, as OwenX pointed out, we all make mistakes. But as JavaHurricane pointed out, some of these are

5346:

were draftified because "more sources needed" but each had a reference to a government source fully verifying the list contents.

5278: 5159: 5043: 4801: 4783: 4261: 4224: 4026:

A good editor, but maybe she should slow down a little while draftifying. However, this issue doesn’t change my vote to oppose.

3791: 3718: 3465: 3440: 3137: 2309: 2075: 1849: 8937: 7714:

Someday, people will rely on their own two eyes and brain rather than pointing at earwig. Especially when I give them a source.

7381: 7303: 7149: 7130: 7025:

search to make sure there aren't new sources to consider. (I agree I fell short here, which I point out in my second comment).

5957: 5186: 5107: 4523: 4448: 4202: 3810: 3735: 3325: 3285: 3268: 3170: 2725: 2583: 2188: 1927: 1822: 8646:

Bottom line: I agree with SL's draftification of this article (and disagree with it being returned immediately to mainspace).

8460: 7731:

The Anthony Awards are among the most prestigious awards in the world of mystery writers and have helped boost the careers of

7719:

The Anthony Awards are among the most prestigious awards in the world of mystery writers and have helped boost the careers of

7634: 6759: 6464: 6456:

Backdoor deletion concerns makes me very apprehensive about giving this editor the power to carry out CSDs without oversight.

5406: 5349: 5246:

Per many others, competent and accepts feedback and learns. I think this more important than being perfect now. <humor: -->

5220: 4347: 4041: 4021: 3753: 3095: 2908: 2835: 2688: 2349: 1891: 1446: 8955: 8438: 7473:"I decided to only nominate a few of the bundled articles at a time so as not to overload AfD with 31 very similar articles." 5314: 4430: 4241: 4144: 4102: 3972: 3846: 2102:, and in IMO RfA's should not be viewed as some sort of a high-stakes "job interview." To my mind, what is most important is 1328: 1276: 7740: 6226: 6159: 5883:

Non-admins have no way to check G4 other than tagging it. I do not recommend holding a high G4 error rate against someone. –

4959:, and the opposition is based on the conclusion that the candidate hasn't been so consistent at following them until now. – 4413: 4298: 3804:

there's any indication that an editor favoring draftification in new page patrolling would lead to any sort of tool misuse.

3028: 1948: 7183: 6523:

say otherwise. That AfD shouldn't have been started in the first place, and the failure of the candidate to do an adequate

6505:

attitude we need from an admin. As for the experience needed to make fewer such mistakes, it will surely come soon enough.

6322: 4546: 4485: 3036:- happy with answer to my question, clearly a sensible and valuable contributor who will do useful things with the tools. — 2969: 2499: 2049:. Excellent content creation record twinned with excellent NPP work is a sure sign of an thoroughly excellent contributor. 9604:

I wasn't confusing your statement, I was just disagreeing with the conclusion. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

5826: 3247: 9544: 7475:, I think that can be a reasonable approach, but regardless of how you present them, every article proposed for deletion 7266:) or where a G4 had previously been declined, as should have been noticed by viewing the page history before nominating ( 7014:(which might take over a day) is frankly expecting too much from a group that is pretty overburdened with a huge backlog. 6238:

You're probably aware of this, but your opinion on draftification is very different compared to current community norms.

5492:

than even the most active NPPers. Is that alone not evidence that she is out of step with what other reviewers are doing?

9631:

I haven't had *too* many complaints (I count two in my talk page archives, but there may be more somewhere), although I

7017:

From my personal POV, if I want to check if a article potentially meets G4, I will first make sure that the new article

1203: 321:

You make 42 edits per day and have written many articles; what motivated you to start editing Knowledge four years ago?

9215: 8635:

court talks about, and even though the court described it as having a "profound impact." The first reason given by the

7797: 7785: 7267: 4691: 3472: 1611: 1576: 1554: 735: 477: 812: 6995: 4761: 3645:. I thank the candidate for challenging weak content and condemn those who wish to protect it through wikilawyering. 1965: 7262:), and some G4s, such as where it was not necessary to view deleted revisions to determine that G4 would not apply ( 6380:

Neither article was unsourced, and I do not agree on reflexively draftifying stubs rather than tagging as unsourced.

3226:

liberdade and Beans has works on some articles together. The Beans thinks liberdade is qualified for the mop. Best,

8530: 7938:

you revert my vandalism?!) And if you spend enough time editing here to be experienced enough to be an admin, that

5915: 5857: 3125: 2473: 1343: 739: 306:

When you first log on to Knowledge each day, what are the first few areas of the project that you look at or edit?

33: 17: 6313:

interaction, and although it's polite, I'm not keen on the tone and lack of time and care for a content producer.

5838: 5814: 1718:

is conscientious, polite, and collaborative, even when faced with bad-faith accusations and direct criticism. The

1369: 7673: 7225: 7203: 4910: 4064: 3520: 2635: 2149: 1671: 1498:

To reiterate what I've said ... twice ... I am talking about what I'm talking about. No questions will be taken.

3243: 9400: 8551:

First, I am perplexed by why you wrote "no doubt the author would have added that information eventually" when

8349: 7858: 7755: 7680: 6966:

Sohom Datta's commentary is confused at best for several additional reasons: What sources an article/draft has

6301: 6025:

You've been here five years. Why did you create an article with zero sources? How was the move premature given

5953: 5135: 1845: 1726:

pass, so she takes the article to AfD for community consensus. The nominator is clear that she has performed a

1247:

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an

1015:

area. The point at which an admin can be INVOLVED in a large topic area has been inconclusively discussed (see

9653: 8262:

that led me to conclude that she can be trusted to learn from the feedback in the RfA about draftification. --

7276:

review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion

5481: 469:

open (as in "speech") resource , but we also need guardrails to protect both the encyclopedia and its editors.

9557: 9514: 9509:

be tried. But if it gets even a single objection, AfD it is. So it seems AfD is the more "official" process.

9376: 9321: 8248: 8194: 7835: 7808: 7582: 7534: 7458: 7238: 6674: 6181: 5446: 5081: 5062: 4681: 4275: 2578: 1302: 1224: 1197: 1159: 795:

You see someone threaten suicide on wiki very seriously, and you're the first to see it, who do you contact?

767: 561: 195: 99: 8736:

I did not include Congress' 1950 amendment to the habeas corpus statute because it did not directly address

5834: 888: 9704: 9076: 9044: 8449: 8312: 8297: 7880: 7162: 5208: 3500: 2901: 2201: 1632: 1503: 1323: 405: 80: 7237:

The issues raised by Joe roe, and confirmed and augmented by others since, are unfortunately fundamental.

6885:

is an example where you don't need to view any deleted content to know that a new AfD would be necessary.

6092: 5846: 1364: 9632: 9019: 8435: 7100: 7060: 6804: 6363:

Neither move called out no sources as the reason for draftification, but both clearly need more sources.

4600: 4211: 2469: 1318: 966:

What's an example (hypothetical is fine) of a userspace page that could be deleted under G11 but not U5?

126: 6056:

of belittling my initial edit based on my tenure is relevant to discussing approaches to draftification

136:! I discovered later that she's been quietly doing tons of good work for the project in the trenches of 9722:

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

9151: 9062: 8933:'s, of all things, blow up in my face), if only because most users can't review exactly what you did. — 8745:

was never overturned. Perhaps I could have included the "Under construction" template, as suggested by

6409:

Each of which has a single source. Are they also "natural draft candidates"? I'm genuinely interested.

5874: 5787: 5701: 5631: 5600: 5540: 4997: 4965: 4896: 4308: 4074: 4060: 3951: 3822: 3242:

I don't remember ever coming across your username, but among other things, I liked your answer to #14.

2251: 2236: 2140: 1944: 1905: 1467: 1392: 145: 9464:

I do agree that we as a community could do better and be more clear about draft space being optional.

6644:, but lack of solid knowledge of the CSD criteria is outright disqualifying at RfA in my book. Sorry. 9469: 8847: 8374: 8345: 7854: 7824: 7781: 7751: 7676: 6777:

Are you saying they will delete articles directly from mainspace without any discussions whatsoever?

6432: 6368: 5615: 5581: 5318: 5234: 5131: 4981: 4481: 3932: 3893: 3661: 3259:

My only interaction with the user was very positive. NPP definitely seems to need more admins, also.

2602: 2036: 1918:- Healthy pie chart, adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Be a good admin. 1799: 1767: 1269: 1105: 9029: 8677:

know how much incorrect information they had.) (Neither have I of course, neither has anyone else.)

6856:

That article as it stands has only two non-independent references non of which prove notability per

1297: 9553: 9510: 9340: 8884:. Clearly can make good use of the tools and has the correct temperment to be entrusted with them. 8241: 8187: 7828: 7801: 7800:). I apologize for letting this happen. Feel free to reach out to me if you have further concerns. 7575: 7527: 7468: 7451: 6710:. I too share the concerns others have raised about the candidate's draftification of articles. ~~ 6667: 6305: 6174: 5965:

Given that my most recent interaction with Significa liberdade was the premature draftification of

5439: 5077: 5058: 4831: 4677: 4271: 4124: 3366: 3108: 2870: 2848: 2705: 2424: 1155: 872: 760: 188: 94: 1191: 915: 811:. If I did not response a response within one hour, I would contact WMF’s back-up emergency line ( 575:

on your talk page. There was also a problem on a draft a few months later, which also resulted in

239:. As an admin, I could handle these tasks more readily rather than adding to the existing backlog. 9700: 9696: 9594: 9533: 9489: 9357: 9179: 9072: 9054: 9040: 8756: 8697: 8666: 8606: 8571: 8520: 7876: 7669: 7665: 7650: 7158: 6782: 6737: 6690: 6651: 6629: 6576: 6535: 6489: 6102: 6063: 6014: 5984: 5893: 5866: 5590:

You're welcome to calculate the draftification rate of a broader sample. Until then this is just

5365: 5353: 5329: 4641: 3859: 3496: 3412: 3227: 3152: 2735: 2197: 1982: 1629: 1499: 1147: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 849: 801:

It’s important to take all claims seriously and react immediately by taking the following steps:

576: 572: 569: 517:

to marriage, two children, home ownership and starting a small business. I notice that you wrote

89: 76: 8912:'s up in the oppose section. (I actually edit-conflicted with him yesterday trying to reply to 8240:. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions and/or would like additional examples. 5332:

because it had "no sources", but at the time it listed general nineteen references in line with

9303: 9269: 9243: 9222: 9015: 8390: 7613: 7282: 7095: 7055: 6915: 6902: 6847: 6799: 6078: 6034: 5012: 4934: 4591: 4357: 4049:. I'm not convinced by the concerns about AfD/article deletion. Their match rate is still : --> 3548: 3215: 3201: 2668: 2390: 2368: 1862: 1607: 1583: 1561: 1429: 879: 45: 9399:

nominate her if I didn't believe that. I do ask people that are on the fence to consider that

5677:

skipped, so I don't think an average figure is really that useful. Other people may disagree.

9502: 9425: 9403:

is in the works. I think she should be given a chance to prove that she can be a good admin.

9289: 9147: 9058: 8858: 8643:

is Congress partly overturning it in 1950, but that's not mentioned in the Knowledge article.

8514:

The problem is that this has been happening to articles that did not contain misinformation.

8411: 8019: 7925: 7032: 6992: 6953: 6871: 6554: 6239: 5870: 5782: 5696: 5626: 5595: 5535: 4992: 4960: 4875: 4758: 4661: 4578: 4305: 4181: 4119: 3947: 3817: 3631: 3614: 3564: 3527: 3484: 3185: 3073: 3058: 2934: 2919: 2790: 2756: 2697: 2438: 2411: 2290: 2247: 2232: 2054: 2016: 2002: 1961: 1900: 1667: 1457: 1388: 254:

ways by adding references, cleaning up formatting, etc., not to mention my work with NPP and

141: 9682: 9613: 9579: 9465: 9412: 9201: 9126: 9092: 8899: 8889: 8843: 8368: 8267: 8227: 8169: 8155: 8119: 8104: 8085: 7963: 7948: 7910: 7793: 7350: 7084: 6715: 6569:

overnight can fry you brain and vocabulary... anyways, that's enough off-topic discussion.

6428: 6364: 6264: 5913: 5855: 5818: 5686: 5611: 5577: 5563: 5525: 5425: 5333: 5230: 4977: 4845: 4814: 4738: 4560: 4498: 4384: 4326: 3926: 3909: 3889: 3697: 3646: 3582: 3041: 3000: 2982: 2773: 2652: 2596: 2125: 2088: 2031: 1795: 1763: 1748: 1708: 1652: 1643: 1489: 1413: 1262: 1076: 906: 600: 416: 175: 6007:

Sorry, figured that was clear from Joe providing the diff that indicates me as the author

2120:, not the polite critical/analytical judgement of a reviewer or AfD nominator such as SL. 1730:

search and was surprised to find very little; she also lists some of the sources that she

8: 9640: 9281: 8999: 8968: 8337: 7747: 7563: 7502: 7438: 7398: 7331: 7198: 5767: 5053: 4827: 4705: 4625: 4462: 3876: 3768: 3680: 3480: 3385: 3104: 2861: 2844: 2701: 2631: 2548: 2535: 2520:— have seen them doing good work at NPP. And of course I would trust a nomination backed 2508: 2270: 2220: 2167: 2071: 1879: 1525: 1059:

However, I also think it’s important to also highlight what I see as the goal of AfD: to

808: 652: 443: 2802:- I've run across their efforts through CSD and have no issues. Thanks for stepping up. 1484:

Good luck! Opposes are valid but I vote not on what they are but on what they could be.

560:

Early in your tenure on Knowledge, you added copyrighted material to a couple of pages (

9589: 9528: 9485: 9455:

on the Village Pump from this past May (and June, and July) about exactly this issue. —

9369: 9348: 9320:

is down, so this RfA (and other centralized notices aren't being advertised per usual.

8750: 8721: 8692: 8682: 8661: 8651: 8601: 8565: 8542: 8515: 8505: 8183: 8033: 7377: 7299: 7145: 7126: 6732: 6685: 6663: 6646: 6624: 6571: 6530: 6484: 6200: 6096: 6057: 6026: 6008: 5998: 5978: 5949: 5884: 5646: 5468: 5392: 5274: 5155: 4956: 4948: 4797: 4779: 4637: 4256: 4220: 3855: 3787: 3714: 3492: 3458: 3433: 3408: 3143: 3133: 2731: 2345: 2324: 2305: 1841: 1248: 1235: 1024: 1008: 627: 568:). An experienced editor noticed this, revdeleted the copyrighted content, and dropped 118: 62: 7053:

have potential, or just categorising new articles that start as single sourced stubs.

6087:

Your argument suggests that if a novice editor left the article that way, it would be

9662: 9265: 9239: 9212: 9193: 9036: 8909: 8766: 8472: 8386: 8333: 7630: 7609: 7279: 6936: 6925: 6912: 6899: 6844: 6755: 6353: 6252: 6074: 6044: 6030: 5973: 5778: 5774: 5666: 5502: 5477: 5401: 5369: 5284: 5177: 5103: 5008: 4930: 4520: 4444: 4079: 3731: 3541: 3353: 3321: 3281: 3264: 3211: 3197: 3167: 2805: 2721: 2665: 2574: 2456: 2184: 1923: 1858: 1818: 1782: 1598: 1573: 1551: 1425: 519:

I had recently moved to a new area and started a PhD, so I was in need of new hobbies

362: 336: 7792:

article history, you’ll see it has the same sentence in the lead, going back to the

9548: 9429: 9285: 9210:

Thank you :) People can express their thanks by supporting this fantastic nominee.

8445: 8406: 8015: 7921: 7768: 7711: 7698: 7643: 7480: 7026: 7022: 7011: 7006: 6987: 6972: 6947: 6895: 6865: 6524: 6335: 6192: 6147: 6053: 5904: 5763: 5591: 5464: 5204: 4952: 4871: 4753: 4730: 4655: 4574: 4371: 4154: 4112: 4036: 4017: 3837:

No red flags from my perspective. Seems to be a productive and trustworthy editor.

3751: 3559: 3337: 3179: 3069: 3054: 2930: 2915: 2895: 2830: 2786: 2752: 2684: 2432: 2405: 2283: 2050: 2012: 1998: 1957: 1888: 1727: 1441: 637:

ever consider myself involved with a topic, I would not engage as an administrator.

465: 461: 236: 9523:

The problem is that Significa has been starting AfD discussions for articles that

7890: 6500:

While I was the one who raised the AfD issue as a reason to oppose promotion, the

5395:, but unfortunately neither is something I can look past in an admin candidate. – 4210:. The issues of the Oppose are correct. However, having scanned through the circa 1381: 9605: 9571: 9438: 9404: 9299: 9197: 9122: 9088: 8981: 8951: 8895: 8885: 8867: 8817: 8802: 8779: 8586: 8491: 8431: 8263: 8236:

After receiving consent from the other editor, I feel comfortable linking to the

8223: 8179: 8165: 8147: 8140: 8115: 8100: 8081: 8011: 7959: 7944: 7906: 7692: 7345: 7076: 6711: 6509: 6283: 6256: 6222: 6154: 5908: 5850: 5749: 5734: 5678: 5555: 5517: 5457: 5421: 4841: 4810: 4734: 4556: 4494: 4426: 4375: 4318: 4237: 4098: 3989: 3968: 3905: 3842: 3693: 3578: 3037: 2996: 2978: 2769: 2648: 2381: 2359: 2121: 2084: 1744: 1704: 1684: 1485: 1405: 1136:. No pressure to provide an explanation for all of them, or all of them at once. 596: 550: 412: 387: 298: 167: 7668:

and promotional copyvio added to article text as of last May are disqualifying.

5306: 4535:

for years now, so here's my money where my mouth is. Thanks for volunteering! ☆

9692: 9636: 9317: 9164: 9107: 8961: 8046: 7789: 7571: 7546: 7510: 7485: 7447: 7421: 7391: 7314: 7219: 7193: 7179: 6820: 6769: 6548: 6414: 6385: 6318: 6309: 6049: 5781:. NPPers should not be relying on automated scripts to tell them what to do. – 5378: 5116: 4618: 4511: 4458: 4296: 4004: 3872: 3854:

weighing the strength of the nomination and the concerns raised lands me here.

3763: 3676: 3625: 3608: 3604: 3513: 3488: 3378: 3294: 3019: 2627: 2531: 2504: 2266: 2214: 2163: 2067: 1940: 1875: 1663: 1624: 1515: 1028: 1012: 894: 756: 701: 648: 616: 588: 506: 7479:

its own due diligence with regard to process--most especially the elements of

1790:

from being moved to draft space (I actually have this filter in my bookmarks).

9735: 9718:

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

8921: 8913: 8717: 8678: 8647: 8538: 8501: 8065: 8029: 7373: 7295: 7271: 7263: 7140: 7122: 6891: 6857: 6196: 5994: 5940: 5830: 5822: 5759: 5642: 5472: 5249: 5151: 5033: 4793: 4775: 4542: 4477: 4251: 4216: 3783: 3710: 3476: 3451: 3426: 3129: 2964: 2494: 2320: 2301: 1874:— As someone who often creates news pages, I appreciate anyone who does NPP! 1837: 1723: 1696: 1692: 1039: 990: 891: 666: 626:

Thank you for volunteering. What areas of Knowledge do you consider yourself

432: 273: 255: 224: 137: 58: 9347:

is displaying a link to RFA for me though so appears to be working for me. –

9658: 9568:

did not have a lack of evidence of notability and/or inadequate referencing

9456: 9142:

that was a trial run that expired at the end of the last RfA. Feel free to

8934: 8930: 8467: 7626: 6929: 6928:

On taking a further look, you are correct, this one of the few cases where

6861: 6751: 6457: 6348: 5924: 5842: 5661: 5497: 5435: 5412: 5396: 5169: 5099: 4515: 4440: 4196: 3805: 3727: 3317: 3277: 3260: 3164: 3121: 2717: 2564: 2180: 1919: 1814: 1688: 882: 841:

My end-to-end encrypted password manager says my password is "very strong."

752: 743: 712: 686: 232: 228: 7406:

approach to that AfD, surely? You're basically saying "Well eight of the

9543:

And on that front, I agree with the general principle I heard from MB at

8917: 8454: 6882: 6839: 5200: 4342: 4027: 4009: 3744: 3596: 3088: 2889: 2823: 2680: 2339: 1438: 675: 671: 9057:! There's a place up top where you can add your signature as monitor :) 8908:

I'm landing here at neutral leaning oppose. My thoughts are similar to

6244: 4976:

you might expect, despite the similar but different goals and purposes.

9434: 8977: 8947: 8863: 8813: 8798: 8775: 8746: 8582: 8483: 8427: 6838:

I forgot about a specific incident which nearly led to the deletion of

6506: 6279: 6233: 6218: 6165: 6151: 5745: 5730: 4422: 4233: 4137: 4094: 3981: 3960: 3838: 1786: 1027:(since I wrote the article), but probably not too much to close one on 670:

misinformation. However, because sources on Knowledge are used both to

9121:, the trial is over, so we're back to the status quo ante for now. -- 6836:

Absolutely perfect candidate! Wonder why they're not an admin already.

5488:

over the same time period. In other words, SL is draftifying articles

5321:) but even just sampling from the last month turns up multiple errors: 4439:

the kind of task that one would have a valid need of admin tools for.

3128:, but I think her answer to question 1 addresses this satisfactorily. 9726:

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

9175: 9161: 9137: 9118: 9104: 8210: 7997: 7691:

I ran it through Earwig and doesn't look copyvio and doesn't read as

7175: 6591: 6424: 6410: 6402: 6381: 6314: 4792:

prolific editor would learn from (or adjust to) the concerns raised.

4403: 4290: 3979:

I don't think we want to make perfect the enemy of the (really) good.

3601:

she provided an assessment of an impressively large amount of sources

3013: 1936: 1424:, she is definitely an excellent, qualified user! Hope for the best! 8343:

Responses to this comment, negative or positive, are always welcome.

8205: 7259: 6946:

and not when the notability of the article is called into question.

6251:

for a recent example of that). But draftifying is not meant to be a

4077:, I am taking these words you've said above to my personal archive. 2066:. Don't see any issues here. Would be a net benefit to the project. 1251:. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section. 911: 8164:

with how RfA candidates should approach the process, in general. --

8051: 6427:: Articles older than 90 days are not eligible for draftification. 5384: 4729:. In effect, approach the use of the tools from the perspective of 4537: 4471: 2950: 2487: 1238:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 565: 9499:

And if you go for deletion, you will get heat for not draftifying.

5480:

for not having sources – missing the fact that another editor had

1254: 817:

Remove the content and provide a discreet and kindly edit summary.

9261: 7390:

eight of those books individually, all of which were redirected.

6249:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Carleton House Preparatory School

4374:. Concerns raised in the opposes will be resolved by experience. 708: 9527:

a lack of evidence of notability and/or inadequate referencing.

8691:

We've seen more than enough, and many of them were very recent.

4866: 4861: 4856: 876: 9344: 9257: 2524: 7980:

in another candidate's Q3 as someone they had a conflict with.

7217:- the issues shown by others, mainly Joe Roe, are concerning. 5150:

along the lines of the comments of GreenLipstickLesbian above

1762:: Oh hell yeah. I'm just salty I didn't get to nominate them! 1703:, I went to pester her to run. Excited to vote in support. -- 1687:, and not just so that I never have to see another one of her 1642:

A good user with a good disposition and is clearly competent.

918:), I would grant them AP to lighten the load of fellow NPPers. 8360: 3726:

after reading her response to the first oppose !vote below.

2747:. Not much, if any, personal experience with this candidate. 2613: 2231:: SLD is sufficiently experienced and qualified for the mop. 185:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

7386:

While that mass-nom failed, as most do, the candidate later

6332:

comparison can be made. They are natural draft candidates.

4774:

On balance, I think they'd be a net positive as an admin. –

9253: 6566: 6043:

As Joe noted, my first edit summary was "create skeleton."

5821:, one of the most famous pieces of French architecture, as 3012:- Hold up, you're telling me she's not already an admin? - 2527: 2521: 1090:, sounds like a quotation or allusion. Please explain it. 823:

Privately contact other admins, as is advised at EMERGENCY.

9699:), I have moved this one to the general comments section. 8028:

I think you have an idiosyncratic definition of conflict.

7370:

she has quite a few other alarming speedy keep/withdrawals

4840:^That's the kind of support that ought to get badgered. -- 3603:. All I see here is someone who knows the brave spirit of 730:

So how come, a week and a half ago, you were editor #3 at

7743:

since 2014. Not cited, so Earwig won't always pick it up.

1813:- no concerns, thanks for volunteering to wield the mop! 897: 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

9264:. Three plants were the first three votes. Interesting. 8960:

Thank you for basically writing my thoughts out for me.

6768:

harmful to allow such a risk of inappropriate deletion.

1899:, positive interactions wherever I've seen this editor. 1222:

Edit summary usage for Significa liberdade can be found

411:

Oh, of course. Thanks for the very reasonable answer. --

379:

I’ve had the pleasure of becoming part of the community.

247:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

7294:

learn how not to show up there for your own deletions.

2679:- Thank you for volunteering your time with Knowledge. 885: 804:

Contact the the Wikimedia Foundation’s emergency line (

492:

ever "procedurally" decline a "stale" unblock request?

8385:

I think the opposition is enormously underwhelming...

8049:. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. 6398:

2021–22_Atlantic_10_Conference_men's_basketball_season

3103:

Heck yeah, lord knows that NPP could use more admins.

740:

its revision when the mainspace version was redirected

2112:

for paid editing; this is problematic in my opinion.

452:

This brings to mind the great debate between freedom

217:

Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

8795:

SL would have Speedy Deleted these articles instead.

4341:- doing valuable work, can do it better with a mop. 900: 630:

in and would refrain from acting in admin capacity?

8774:that the real culprit is the lack of clear policy. 2696:: No concerns. I've come across her a few times at 2547:I have noticed their good work at NPP, best wishes 2162:

Trusted user. I expect her to use the tools well. -

9695:(30 days and 500 edits) to cast a numbered !vote ( 9501:Nobody should probably be doing this, considering 6910:I saw multiple huge news sources, will add later. 5315:unilaterally moved 1221 new articles to draftspace 697:more experienced editor tags it for deletion as a 7364:and suggest a review of the nominee's past AfDs. 6940:I saw multiple huge news sources, will add later. 5968:Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky 5766:). We don't remove things from mainspace because 5361:Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky 5326:Draft:List of closed railway stations in Adelaide 4110:: Answers to all of the questions are very good. 2104:trust, temperment, civility, willingness to learn 284:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 9733: 6247:). AfD can even result in a draftification (see 8627:decision is not mentioned in our article about 7958:to cause conflict to develop unnecessarily. -- 7366:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Double Crossing 5372:(the first edit summary was "create skeleton"). 2423:articles. In fact when the math is mathed, the 1735:explicitly accuses the nominator of bad faith ( 1683:I am SO pumped to pass Significa liberdade the 912:backlog currently contains over 10,000 articles 123:received the Editor of the Week award last year 5515:psychedelic patterns, and historical elements. 5283:Making sure I'm the last to support this RFA. 9547:(god rest his account after that crapshoot): 5344:Draft:List of Scheduled Tribes in Uttarakhand 5340:Draft:List of Scheduled Castes in Uttarakhand 2860:. Sure, why not. Good luck with the mop!. 🛧 1270: 6942:-- You should have added sources during the 6887:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sagra 5393:community-established boundaries on its use 2011:Re-affirming support per Asilvering above. 835:How strong is your password for Knowledge? 587:balancing your responses between being too 372:Why did you continue to stay in Knowledge? 7784:! First, I will address the sentence from 6164:Thank you for bringing up these concerns, 5825:. I saw a similar questionable A10 tag on 5762:, not a requirement for all articles (see 2614:§ c-Queen of Hearts-20240918192200-Neutral 2116:What DOES chase off good faith newbies is 1691:again. I've been working alongside her at 1536:You must be a fantastic editor if you get 1277: 1263: 820:Delete the revision and request oversight. 9505:. Sure, draftification is something that 9103:What happened to waiting a day to !vote? 7666:poorly attributed copying from last month 6347:Neither article is (or was) unsourced. – 5482:removed the sources listed by the creator 5366:draftified two hours after it was created 905:With that said, I want to highlight that 8619:That's from the text of the court case ( 1743:of these two groups, not the second. -- 1571:right before the autohold takes effect. 1234:Please keep discussion constructive and 125:for her work in writing and maintaining 8631:, even though it's the first thing the 6122:, reluctantly. AfD nominations such as 5939:to exercise great care with the tools. 5388:cautioned her about overuse of draftify 3761:- leeky and Clovermoss must be right!-- 14: 9734: 7780:Thank you for raising these concerns, 6779:This is a question based on good faith 6640:I strongly appreciate SL's honesty in 5758:Having inline citations is one of the 5471:or in the guidance given to NPPers in 5434:Thank you for raising these concerns, 5354:"more sources to establish notability" 4590:as per the many arguments given above 4555:this editor. Net positive. Regards, -- 3475:is saved by the subtitle, but what is 2114:I encourage SL to continue to be bold. 1977:will be a net-positive to the project. 8595:I'm not sure why Levivich said this. 1701:like throwing stones in a glass house 1258: 2977:- Yep, definitely good for the mop. 8553:I did go on to add that information 5379:extremely alienating to new editors 1597:More than qualified for the tools! 1284: 1001:messages on behalf of the project? 23: 8444:time) is rarely even considered. ( 7798:Knowledge:Copying within Knowledge 7786:Anthony Award for Best Short Story 5368:, while the creator was obviously 3473:The Empress and the English Doctor 2338:: It's hard work staying patient, 1017:a recently closed discussion at AN 941:The Empress and the English Doctor 24: 9753: 9742:Successful requests for adminship 6683:Thank you for the clarification. 5319:draftified just 332 since January 3425:based on her record and answers. 807:) with the necessary details per 8892:) 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 7268:re: List of Serie A broadcasters 6093:WP:Drafts#During_new_page_review 4865: 4860: 4855: 4514:and will take them to heart. ― 3871:Wonderful and qualified editor. 751:Thank you for bringing this up, 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 8500:...that spread misinformation. 8309:Strike pending further review. 5841:), and I see a lot of declined 5813:edits I found included tagging 5484:just a couple of hours earlier. 3888:Good experience, good answers. 1153:Links for Significa liberdade: 115:a compelling DYK hook she wrote 9709:04:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 9687:03:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 9667:00:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 9645:22:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9617:00:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9600:23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9583:22:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9562:21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9539:21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9519:20:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9494:16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9474:15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9460:13:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9443:12:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9416:14:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 9401:Knowledge:Admin reconfirmation 9389:13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9363:20:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9334:17:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9308:12:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9294:12:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 9274:19:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 9248:11:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9227:00:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9206:00:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9183:18:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9170:03:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9156:00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9131:00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9113:00:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 9097:23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 9081:22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 9067:22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 9049:22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 9024:17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 9007:13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8986:11:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8971:11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8956:11:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8938:02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8904:14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8872:12:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8852:15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8822:15:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8807:15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8784:19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8761:18:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8726:15:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8703:15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8687:15:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8672:15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8656:15:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8612:14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8591:11:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8576:02:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8547:20:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8526:19:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8510:17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8496:08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8478:07:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8461:04:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8439:00:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8419:20:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8395:15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 8381:19:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8354:18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8323:11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8307:19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8272:18:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8253:13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8232:18:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8217:18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8199:23:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8174:21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8159:02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8124:22:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8109:22:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8090:21:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8071:17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8038:00:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8024:08:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8004:07:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 7968:00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 7953:22:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 7930:22:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 7915:19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 7885:21:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7863:22:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7840:20:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7813:19:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7776:19:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7760:19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7706:19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7685:19:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7664:Copyright violations, such as 7657:16:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7642:per Joe Roe and a few others. 7635:08:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7618:02:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7587:20:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7567:17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7539:16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7506:16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7463:15:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7442:15:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7401:12:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7382:23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 7357:15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 7335:05:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 7304:05:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 7286:00:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 7251:13:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 7230:12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 7210:08:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 7184:08:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 7167:06:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 7150:23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 7131:16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 7110:09:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 7088:11:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 7070:09:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 7039:19:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 7001:18:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 6960:12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6920:13:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6906:13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6878:12:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6852:00:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 6824:23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6814:09:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6792:06:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6773:04:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6760:01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6743:20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6720:15:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6697:19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6679:19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6658:17:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6636:17:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6602:02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6583:15:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6559:15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6542:13:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6515:13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6496:13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6465:11:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6437:14:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6419:12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6390:11:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6373:14:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6359:09:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6343:09:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6323:07:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6288:02:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6268:01:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6227:01:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 6205:18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 6186:17:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 6160:16:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 6107:17:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 6083:17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 6068:16:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 6039:00:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 6019:16:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 6003:15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 5989:13:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5958:13:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5928:19:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5918:17:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5899:17:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5879:13:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5860:12:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5793:05:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5754:12:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 5739:11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 5707:05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5690:19:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5672:08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5651:05:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5637:04:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5620:19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5606:17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5586:14:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5567:18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5546:17:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5529:11:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5508:08:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5451:16:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5430:16:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5407:08:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5301:22:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5279:18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5239:17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5221:17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5187:11:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5160:10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5140:05:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5120:04:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5108:03:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5090:18:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5071:02:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5044:00:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5017:10:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5003:08:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 4986:08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 4971:05:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 4939:23:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4921:22:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4880:20:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4850:20:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4836:20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4819:19:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4802:18:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4784:18:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4767:18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4743:18:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4709:17:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4697:14:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4669:13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4646:13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4628:13:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4605:12:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4583:10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4565:07:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4547:03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4524:01:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4503:01:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4486:00:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 4467:23:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4449:20:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4431:18:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4414:17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4394:16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4363:15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4348:15:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4330:12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4312:12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4299:06:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4280:20:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4262:19:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4242:18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4225:18:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4203:17:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4186:17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4162:20:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4145:17:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4128:15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4103:14:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4084:02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 4069:11:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4042:11:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4022:11:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3994:01:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 3977:i echo what floquenbeam said: 3973:02:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3956:02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3939:01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 3914:19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3898:18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3881:17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3864:16:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3847:14:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3828:17:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3811:12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3792:09:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3775:08:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3754:07:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3736:06:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3719:05:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3702:04:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3685:02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3668:02:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3636:11:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 3619:02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3587:01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3570:00:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3551:00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3535:00:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3505:00:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3466:23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3441:23:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3418:22:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3398:19:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3369:19:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3345:19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3326:18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3309:11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3286:10:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3269:09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3252:07:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3235:07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3220:17:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 3206:07:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3192:05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3171:04:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3160:03:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3138:02:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3113:02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3096:00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3078:05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 3063:00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3046:00:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3029:23:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 3005:23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2987:21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2970:21:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2939:20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2924:21:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2909:21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2880:21:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2853:20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2836:20:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2815:20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2795:19:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2778:19:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2761:18:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2740:18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2726:17:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2710:17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2689:16:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2672:15:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2657:15:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2640:15:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2616:19:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2609:14:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2584:13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2556:12:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2540:12:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2513:12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2500:11:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2478:11:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2461:08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2445:14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2418:07:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2395:02:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2373:05:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2350:05:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2329:21:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2310:05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2296:05:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2275:05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2256:01:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 2241:04:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2224:04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2205:04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2189:04:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2172:04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2155:03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2130:00:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 2093:03:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2076:03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2059:03:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2042:02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 2021:02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2007:02:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1990:02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1970:02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1949:01:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1928:01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1911:01:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1892:01:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1884:01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1867:01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1850:00:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1823:00:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1804:13:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1772:00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1753:00:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1713:00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1676:00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1656:20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 1647:00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1635:00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1616:00:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 1588:21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 1566:23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1532:23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1508:23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1494:22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1477:22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1447:22:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1434:22:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1417:22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1397:22:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 947: 930: 772:17:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 747:02:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 716:19:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 657:23:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 605:00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 421:17:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 200:22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 179:22:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 150:21:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 85:22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 67:22:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 13: 1: 8178:Thank you for your patience, 8010:Thanks for the clarification 7726:- SL added this text in 2024. 5827:Shadow Cabinet of Anas Sarwar 3178:Great candidate for the mop. 3087:Excellent user, no concerns. 2785:. Fully qualified candidate. 562:Best Fiction for Young Adults 54: 6860:. Also, as mentioned above, 5829:. I also found a challenged 4495:Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert 2929:enemy of the (really) good. 1779:most active reviewers at NPP 732:2000 Tehran airport disaster 7: 9174:very nice to see you again 7608:as per Joe Roe and others. 5350:Draft:Satō–Kishi–Abe family 2282:thanks for volunteering! – 2196:- not a jerk, has a clue. ♠ 1956:I recognize that username! 206:Questions for the candidate 10: 9758: 9697:WP:RFA#Expressing opinions 9280:Oppose count is broken at 9035:Putting my name down as a 8916:, about how almost all of 7974:answered Q3 for my own RfA 7625:as per Joe Roe and Hobit. 6616:The original answer to Q19 5817:, a plausible redirect to 2887:, glad to see you here :) 2843:- not a jerk, has a clue. 1787:NPP Browser ToolForge tool 1249:extended confirmed account 674:information and establish 57:; closed as successful by 9447:You may be interested in 9087:The best kind of lizard! 5867:avoided the mistake since 3276:Yes. I learnt from them. 2300:Thanks for volunteering! 1352: 1311: 1290: 595:Thanks for your answer. — 442:Liberdade as in "speech" 9720:Please do not modify it. 9691:Because editors must be 8639:court for not following 8560:, but the legal rule in 8533:It stated a legal rule ( 6565:Fixed. I guess studying 4949:rules for draftification 4370:for a candidate who's a 3709:. Best of luck comrade! 2425:statistical significance 989:Optional questions from 848:Optional questions from 784:Optional questions from 707:, which you discover in 685:Optional questions from 615:Optional questions from 446:liberdade as in "beer"? 8712:seen more than enough, 7794:page’s creation in 2005 7670:Special:Diff/1223655817 6944:creation of the article 6589:Perhaps you... digress 6302:Surf (graphics program) 5490:thirty times more often 5330:draftified two days ago 1134:Special:Diff/1241367730 1130:Special:Diff/1241387012 1126:Special:Diff/1239154999 1122:Special:Diff/1244742761 1104:Optional question from 1097:significa liberdade. :) 1075:Optional question from 1038:Optional question from 549:Optional question from 505:Optional question from 476:Optional question from 431:Optional question from 386:Optional question from 361:Optional question from 335:Optional question from 297:Optional question from 156:Co-nomination statement 38:Please do not modify it 9252:Another thing is that 9196:, you're a genius. -- 8238:discussion in question 3577:per everyone above. – 3196:Appreciate your work! 2647:. Trustworthy editor. 2470:Pharaoh of the Wizards 2109:instructional function 873:women’s representation 8859:Knowledge:DRAFTOBJECT 7672:appears to copy from 7368:is simply yikes, and 7256:Very slightly opposed 6306:Castes in Uttarakhand 5907:and start a new AfD. 5815:Château_de_Versailles 5760:good article criteria 4075:ScottishFinnishRadish 4061:ScottishFinnishRadish 3485:The Beach at Summerly 2485:It's a yes from me.-- 1857:— looks good to me — 1653:Sincerely, Dilettante 1644:Sincerely, Dilettante 1500:~~ AirshipJungleman29 256:Articles for Creation 130:submersible implosion 34:request for adminship 9256:is a plant, so is a 8346:GreenLipstickLesbian 8242:Significa liberdade 8206:not persuasive to me 8188:Significa liberdade 8099:their Talk page. -- 7855:GreenLipstickLesbian 7829:Significa liberdade 7825:GreenLipstickLesbian 7802:Significa liberdade 7782:GreenLipstickLesbian 7752:GreenLipstickLesbian 7677:GreenLipstickLesbian 7576:Significa liberdade 7528:Significa liberdade 7452:Significa liberdade 7264:see my comment above 7019:in its current state 6668:Significa liberdade 6253:backdoor to deletion 6175:Significa liberdade 5819:Palace of Versailles 5440:Significa liberdade 5132:GreenLipstickLesbian 4717:(moved from Neutral) 3376:It's not that deep. 2979:The Herald (Benison) 1781:and I typically use 1365:Global contributions 1106:GreenLipstickLesbian 761:Significa liberdade 711:. What do you do? — 189:Significa liberdade 134:still the top author 9633:draftify frequently 9554:PhotogenicScientist 9511:PhotogenicScientist 9341:Serial Number 54129 9282:Template:Rfx report 7469:Significa liberdade 6502:Double Crossing AfD 5370:still working on it 5078:Firefangledfeathers 5059:Firefangledfeathers 4272:PhotogenicScientist 3481:Apple in the Middle 2454:: Happy adminship. 1549:this nomination :) 1324:Non-automated edits 1156:Significa liberdade 1088:Significa liberdade 1086:Your account name, 977:Significa Liberdade 95:Significa liberdade 47:Significa liberdade 9721: 9701:Extraordinary Writ 9693:extended-confirmed 9073:Extraordinary Writ 9055:Extraordinary Writ 9041:Extraordinary Writ 8361:Moved from support 8328:(moved to support) 7877:TheJoyfulTentmaker 7159:Bluethricecreamman 5905:search for sources 4953:rules for deletion 4944:of volunteer time. 3497:Indignant Flamingo 3493:The Forgotten Room 3244:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2948:: Good candidate. 2822:No problems here! 2563:Looks good to me. 1630:Just Step Sideways 1623:I came into their 1543: 1539: 1303:Edit summary usage 1242:before commenting. 1025:Maggie Tokuda-Hall 937:Sins of the Shovel 850:Indignant Flamingo 119:Maggie Tokuda-Hall 77:Extraordinary Writ 39: 9719: 9361: 9178:! —usernamekiran 9167: 9110: 9016:Emir of Knowledge 8476: 8417: 8344: 8334:Draft:Noho Island 8260:specific evidence 8245: 8191: 7832: 7805: 7739:- present on the 7653: 7647: 7579: 7531: 7455: 6968:right this second 6671: 6642:her clarification 6357: 6178: 5897: 5791: 5768:they're imperfect 5705: 5670: 5635: 5604: 5544: 5506: 5478:Draft:TAO (brand) 5443: 5405: 5214: 5184: 5001: 4969: 4919: 4904: 4900: 4894: 4826:per the opposes. 4748:Tentative support 4695: 4501: 4358:ThadeusOfNazereth 3826: 3479:about? How about 3416: 2877: 2617: 2153: 1985: 1541: 1537: 1523: 1475: 1378: 1377: 1240:her contributions 1013:contentious topic 764: 667:original research 274:assume good faith 237:revision deletion 192: 37: 9749: 9611: 9608: 9597: 9592: 9577: 9574: 9536: 9531: 9430:Knowledge:Drafts 9410: 9407: 9373: 9355: 9353: 9298:Fixed, I think. 9218: 9165: 9148:theleekycauldron 9141: 9108: 9059:theleekycauldron 9030:General comments 9004: 9002: 8966: 8753: 8752:BluePenguin18 🐧 8700: 8695: 8669: 8664: 8609: 8604: 8568: 8567:BluePenguin18 🐧 8523: 8518: 8487: 8482:crappy articles 8470: 8457: 8416: 8414: 8409: 8377: 8371: 8366: 8342: 8294:- sure why not? 8243: 8215: 8213: 8189: 8153: 8150: 8144: 8069: 8068: 8062: 8061: 8058: 8055: 8002: 8000: 7978:being referenced 7830: 7803: 7773: 7771: 7703: 7701: 7695:. I'm puzzled. 7651: 7645: 7577: 7529: 7453: 7396: 7353: 7348: 7206: 7201: 7148: 7107: 7103: 7098: 7082: 7079: 7067: 7063: 7058: 7035: 6999: 6956: 6918: 6874: 6850: 6811: 6807: 6802: 6789: 6788: 6786:Reading of Beans 6780: 6740: 6735: 6693: 6688: 6669: 6654: 6649: 6632: 6627: 6598: 6579: 6574: 6551: 6538: 6533: 6492: 6487: 6462: 6351: 6340: 6338: 6262: 6259: 6237: 6176: 6099: 6098:BluePenguin18 🐧 6060: 6059:BluePenguin18 🐧 6011: 6010:BluePenguin18 🐧 5981: 5980:BluePenguin18 🐧 5946: 5943: 5891: 5889: 5871:theleekycauldron 5785: 5773:The guidance in 5699: 5684: 5681: 5664: 5629: 5598: 5592:special pleading 5561: 5558: 5538: 5523: 5520: 5500: 5461: 5441: 5399: 5298: 5291: 5271: 5268: 5265: 5262: 5259: 5256: 5253: 5210: 5176: 5124:Moved to Oppose 5040: 5037: 4995: 4963: 4907: 4902: 4898: 4892: 4869: 4864: 4859: 4765: 4685: 4664: 4658: 4623: 4597: 4594: 4540: 4497: 4474: 4410: 4389: 4380: 4361: 4345: 4324: 4321: 4293: 4259: 4254: 4199: 4159: 4157: 4142: 4126: 4122: 4117: 4082: 4039: 4033: 4030: 4014: 3985: 3964: 3948:RevelationDirect 3935: 3929: 3820: 3808: 3749: 3664: 3658: 3655: 3652: 3649: 3628: 3611: 3567: 3562: 3544: 3531: 3524: 3517: 3463: 3456: 3438: 3431: 3407: 3396: 3394: 3383: 3364: 3363: 3360: 3357: 3352:Not a big deal. 3342: 3340: 3306: 3301: 3232: 3188: 3182: 3157: 3156: 3150: 3149: 3093: 3027: 3022: 3016: 2968: 2967: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2954: 2907: 2875: 2869: 2866: 2833: 2828: 2813: 2811: 2808: 2612: 2605: 2599: 2594: 2582: 2570: 2567: 2553: 2497: 2490: 2459: 2441: 2414: 2388: 2386: 2366: 2364: 2342: 2248:Vanderwaalforces 2233:Vanderwaalforces 2217: 2147: 2145: 2144: 2039: 2034: 1988: 1983: 1981: 1908: 1903: 1604: 1603: 1579: 1557: 1530: 1528: 1521: 1518: 1472: 1465: 1464: 1462: 1460:TechnoSquirrel69 1411: 1408: 1389:theleekycauldron 1387:as nominator :) 1319:Articles created 1279: 1272: 1265: 1256: 1255: 1227: 1219: 1178: 1128:(the redirect), 955: 951: 945: 934: 762: 725:reject the draft 706: 700: 293: 190: 173: 170: 142:theleekycauldron 112: 56: 9757: 9756: 9752: 9751: 9750: 9748: 9747: 9746: 9732: 9731: 9730: 9724:this nomination 9609: 9606: 9596:how are things? 9595: 9590: 9575: 9572: 9535:how are things? 9534: 9529: 9466:Hey man im josh 9408: 9405: 9367: 9349: 9216: 9166:◊distænt write◊ 9135: 9109:◊distænt write◊ 9032: 9000: 8998: 8962: 8844:Hey man im josh 8751: 8699:how are things? 8698: 8693: 8668:how are things? 8667: 8662: 8608:how are things? 8607: 8602: 8597:Ahrens v. Clark 8566: 8535:Ahrens v. Clark 8522:how are things? 8521: 8516: 8485: 8455: 8412: 8407: 8375: 8370:Queen of Hearts 8369: 8364: 8317: 8302: 8211: 8209: 8151: 8148: 8138: 8064: 8059: 8056: 8053: 8052: 8050: 7998: 7996: 7893: 7769: 7767: 7699: 7697: 7519:Double Crossing 7392: 7351: 7346: 7228: 7208: 7204: 7199: 7144: 7105: 7101: 7096: 7080: 7077: 7065: 7061: 7056: 7033: 6985: 6954: 6911: 6872: 6843: 6809: 6805: 6800: 6784: 6783: 6778: 6739:how are things? 6738: 6733: 6691: 6686: 6652: 6647: 6630: 6625: 6618:, though since 6604: 6592: 6585: 6577: 6572: 6561: 6549: 6536: 6531: 6512: 6490: 6485: 6479:Double Crossing 6458: 6429:Hey man im josh 6365:Hey man im josh 6336: 6334: 6260: 6257: 6231: 6157: 6097: 6058: 6009: 5979: 5944: 5941: 5885: 5839:discussion here 5835:Kick Sauber C44 5682: 5679: 5612:Hey man im josh 5578:Hey man im josh 5559: 5556: 5521: 5518: 5455: 5375: 5309: 5292: 5285: 5269: 5266: 5263: 5260: 5257: 5254: 5251: 5231:Alanscottwalker 5215: 5038: 5035: 4978:Hey man im josh 4751: 4662: 4656: 4619: 4595: 4592: 4536: 4472: 4404: 4387: 4378: 4356: 4343: 4322: 4319: 4291: 4257: 4252: 4197: 4155: 4153: 4138: 4120: 4113: 4111: 4078: 4037: 4031: 4028: 4010: 3983: 3962: 3937: 3933: 3928:Red-tailed hawk 3927: 3890:LemonOrangeLime 3806: 3745: 3743:. No concerns. 3662: 3656: 3653: 3650: 3647: 3626: 3609: 3565: 3560: 3542: 3529: 3522: 3515: 3459: 3452: 3434: 3427: 3386: 3379: 3377: 3361: 3358: 3355: 3354: 3338: 3336: 3302: 3295: 3228: 3186: 3180: 3154: 3153: 3145: 3144: 3089: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3014: 2963: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2949: 2906: 2888: 2871: 2864:Midori No Sora♪ 2862: 2831: 2824: 2809: 2806: 2803: 2664:- no concerns. 2603: 2598:Queen of Hearts 2597: 2592: 2572: 2568: 2565: 2549: 2495: 2488: 2455: 2439: 2412: 2382: 2379: 2360: 2357: 2340: 2215: 2142: 2141: 2037: 2032: 1980:« Gonzo fan2007 1979: 1978: 1906: 1901: 1796:Hey man im josh 1764:Hey man im josh 1720:Lauren Chen AfD 1601: 1599: 1577: 1555: 1526: 1516: 1513: 1468: 1458: 1455: 1444: 1443:it has begun... 1409: 1406: 1384: 1379: 1374: 1348: 1307: 1286: 1285:RfA/RfB toolbox 1283: 1223: 1171: 1154: 1150: 960: 959: 958: 952: 948: 935: 931: 704: 698: 460:(also known as 456:versus freedom 283: 225:New Page Patrol 208: 171: 168: 97: 92: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 9755: 9745: 9744: 9729: 9728: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9671: 9670: 9669: 9649: 9648: 9647: 9629: 9628: 9627: 9626: 9625: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9619: 9503:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 9480: 9479: 9478: 9477: 9476: 9462: 9426:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 9420: 9419: 9418: 9395: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9391: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9310: 9278: 9277: 9276: 9260:, and so is a 9231: 9230: 9229: 9191: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9160:thanks, y'all 9144:weigh in on it 9133: 9101: 9100: 9099: 9085: 9084: 9083: 9071:Neat; thanks. 9031: 9028: 9027: 9026: 9009: 9001:Rhododendrites 8990: 8989: 8988: 8973: 8940: 8906: 8878: 8877: 8876: 8875: 8874: 8854: 8840: 8839: 8838: 8837: 8836: 8835: 8834: 8833: 8832: 8831: 8830: 8829: 8828: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8824: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8787: 8786: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8728: 8644: 8617: 8564:still stands. 8441: 8421: 8399: 8398: 8397: 8358: 8357: 8356: 8315: 8300: 8287: 8286: 8285: 8284: 8283: 8282: 8281: 8280: 8279: 8278: 8277: 8276: 8275: 8274: 8219: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8133: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8127: 8126: 8047:makes it worse 8042: 8041: 8040: 8008: 8007: 8006: 7993: 7989: 7985: 7981: 7892: 7889: 7888: 7887: 7869: 7868: 7867: 7866: 7865: 7850: 7846: 7821: 7820: 7819: 7818: 7817: 7816: 7815: 7790:Anthony Awards 7778: 7744: 7727: 7715: 7662:Strong Oppose 7659: 7637: 7620: 7603: 7602: 7601: 7600: 7599: 7598: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7593: 7592: 7591: 7590: 7589: 7359: 7337: 7306: 7288: 7253: 7232: 7224: 7212: 7192: 7186: 7169: 7152: 7133: 7116: 7115: 7114: 7113: 7112: 7047: 7046: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7042: 7041: 7015: 6983: 6979: 6969: 6964: 6963: 6962: 6933: 6922: 6830: 6829: 6828: 6827: 6826: 6816: 6762: 6745: 6722: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6700: 6699: 6660: 6613: 6612: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6588: 6564: 6546: 6510: 6467: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6407: 6406: 6405: 6400: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6291: 6290: 6245:this flowchart 6240:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 6211: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6155: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6050:rule of lenity 6048:be applying a 6023: 6022: 6021: 5960: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5881: 5845:tags, such as 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5771: 5727: 5723: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5709: 5657: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5493: 5485: 5383: 5374: 5373: 5357: 5347: 5337: 5322: 5308: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5281: 5241: 5223: 5209: 5189: 5181: 5173: 5162: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5110: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5046: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 4945: 4923: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4828:Neo Purgatorio 4821: 4809:net positive. 4804: 4786: 4769: 4745: 4711: 4699: 4671: 4648: 4630: 4607: 4585: 4567: 4549: 4526: 4505: 4488: 4469: 4451: 4433: 4416: 4396: 4365: 4350: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4282: 4264: 4244: 4227: 4205: 4188: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4130: 4105: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4044: 4024: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3958: 3941: 3931: 3916: 3900: 3883: 3866: 3849: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3794: 3777: 3756: 3738: 3721: 3704: 3687: 3670: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3589: 3572: 3553: 3537: 3507: 3468: 3443: 3420: 3400: 3371: 3347: 3328: 3311: 3288: 3271: 3254: 3237: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3194: 3173: 3162: 3140: 3115: 3105:Kingsmasher678 3098: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3048: 3031: 3018: 3007: 2989: 2972: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2911: 2892: 2882: 2855: 2845:MaterialsPsych 2838: 2817: 2797: 2780: 2763: 2742: 2728: 2712: 2702:ARandomName123 2698:WP:DELSORT/LIT 2691: 2674: 2659: 2642: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2558: 2542: 2515: 2502: 2480: 2463: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2428: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2352: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2316: 2298: 2277: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2226: 2207: 2191: 2174: 2157: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2078: 2061: 2044: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1992: 1972: 1951: 1930: 1913: 1894: 1886: 1869: 1852: 1825: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1791: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1740: 1678: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1637: 1618: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1534: 1510: 1496: 1479: 1449: 1442: 1436: 1419: 1399: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1373: 1372: 1367: 1362: 1356: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1347: 1346: 1341: 1336: 1331: 1326: 1321: 1315: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1306: 1305: 1300: 1294: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1282: 1281: 1274: 1267: 1259: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1220: 1149: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1057: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029:Colleen Hoover 1020: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 957: 956: 946: 928: 927: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 903: 868: 845: 844: 843: 842: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 821: 818: 815: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 682: 681: 680: 679: 641: 640: 639: 638: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 537: 533: 502: 501: 500: 499: 473: 472: 471: 470: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 383: 382: 381: 380: 358: 357: 356: 355: 332: 331: 330: 329: 316: 315: 314: 301: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 261: 260: 259: 242: 241: 240: 207: 204: 203: 202: 159: 158: 132:, where she's 91: 88: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9754: 9743: 9740: 9739: 9737: 9727: 9725: 9716: 9715: 9710: 9706: 9702: 9698: 9694: 9690: 9689: 9688: 9684: 9680: 9676: 9673: 9672: 9668: 9664: 9660: 9655: 9650: 9646: 9642: 9638: 9634: 9630: 9618: 9615: 9612: 9603: 9602: 9601: 9598: 9593: 9591:GrammarDamner 9586: 9585: 9584: 9581: 9578: 9569: 9565: 9564: 9563: 9559: 9555: 9550: 9546: 9542: 9541: 9540: 9537: 9532: 9530:GrammarDamner 9526: 9522: 9521: 9520: 9516: 9512: 9508: 9504: 9500: 9497: 9496: 9495: 9491: 9487: 9486:DoubleGrazing 9482: 9481: 9475: 9471: 9467: 9463: 9461: 9458: 9454: 9452: 9446: 9445: 9444: 9440: 9436: 9431: 9427: 9422: 9421: 9417: 9414: 9411: 9402: 9397: 9396: 9390: 9387: 9386: 9385: 9380: 9379: 9371: 9370:Novem Linguae 9366: 9365: 9364: 9359: 9354: 9352: 9351:Novem Linguae 9346: 9342: 9338: 9337: 9336: 9335: 9332: 9331: 9330: 9325: 9324: 9319: 9309: 9305: 9301: 9297: 9296: 9295: 9291: 9287: 9283: 9279: 9275: 9271: 9267: 9263: 9259: 9255: 9251: 9250: 9249: 9245: 9241: 9236: 9232: 9228: 9224: 9220: 9219: 9214: 9209: 9208: 9207: 9203: 9199: 9195: 9192: 9184: 9181: 9177: 9173: 9172: 9171: 9168: 9163: 9159: 9158: 9157: 9153: 9149: 9145: 9139: 9134: 9132: 9128: 9124: 9120: 9116: 9115: 9114: 9111: 9106: 9102: 9098: 9094: 9090: 9086: 9082: 9078: 9074: 9070: 9069: 9068: 9064: 9060: 9056: 9052: 9051: 9050: 9046: 9042: 9038: 9034: 9033: 9025: 9021: 9017: 9013: 9010: 9008: 9003: 8996: 8991: 8987: 8983: 8979: 8974: 8972: 8969: 8967: 8965: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8953: 8949: 8944: 8941: 8939: 8936: 8932: 8927: 8923: 8919: 8915: 8911: 8907: 8905: 8901: 8897: 8893: 8891: 8887: 8883: 8879: 8873: 8869: 8865: 8860: 8855: 8853: 8849: 8845: 8841: 8823: 8819: 8815: 8810: 8809: 8808: 8804: 8800: 8796: 8791: 8785: 8781: 8777: 8772: 8768: 8764: 8763: 8762: 8758: 8754: 8748: 8744: 8739: 8735: 8727: 8723: 8719: 8715: 8711: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8701: 8696: 8694:GrammarDamner 8690: 8689: 8688: 8684: 8680: 8675: 8674: 8673: 8670: 8665: 8663:GrammarDamner 8659: 8658: 8657: 8653: 8649: 8645: 8642: 8638: 8634: 8630: 8626: 8622: 8618: 8615: 8614: 8613: 8610: 8605: 8603:GrammarDamner 8598: 8594: 8593: 8592: 8588: 8584: 8579: 8578: 8577: 8573: 8569: 8563: 8559: 8554: 8550: 8549: 8548: 8544: 8540: 8536: 8532: 8531:This one did. 8529: 8528: 8527: 8524: 8519: 8517:GrammarDamner 8513: 8512: 8511: 8507: 8503: 8499: 8498: 8497: 8493: 8489: 8481: 8480: 8479: 8474: 8469: 8464: 8463: 8462: 8459: 8458: 8451: 8447: 8442: 8440: 8437: 8433: 8429: 8425: 8422: 8420: 8415: 8410: 8403: 8400: 8396: 8392: 8388: 8384: 8383: 8382: 8378: 8372: 8362: 8359: 8355: 8351: 8347: 8341: 8339: 8335: 8329: 8326: 8325: 8324: 8321: 8320: 8318: 8308: 8306: 8305: 8303: 8293: 8289: 8288: 8273: 8269: 8265: 8261: 8256: 8255: 8254: 8250: 8246: 8239: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8229: 8225: 8220: 8218: 8214: 8207: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8196: 8192: 8185: 8181: 8177: 8176: 8175: 8171: 8167: 8162: 8161: 8160: 8157: 8154: 8142: 8137: 8125: 8121: 8117: 8112: 8111: 8110: 8106: 8102: 8097: 8093: 8092: 8091: 8087: 8083: 8079: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8067: 8063: 8048: 8043: 8039: 8035: 8031: 8027: 8026: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8013: 8009: 8005: 8001: 7994: 7990: 7986: 7982: 7979: 7975: 7971: 7970: 7969: 7965: 7961: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7950: 7946: 7941: 7937: 7933: 7932: 7931: 7927: 7923: 7918: 7917: 7916: 7912: 7908: 7903: 7898: 7895: 7894: 7886: 7882: 7878: 7873: 7870: 7864: 7860: 7856: 7851: 7847: 7843: 7842: 7841: 7837: 7833: 7826: 7822: 7814: 7810: 7806: 7799: 7795: 7791: 7787: 7783: 7779: 7777: 7774: 7772: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7757: 7753: 7749: 7745: 7742: 7738: 7736: 7732: 7728: 7725: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7713: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7704: 7702: 7694: 7690: 7689: 7688: 7687: 7686: 7682: 7678: 7674: 7671: 7667: 7663: 7660: 7658: 7654: 7648: 7641: 7638: 7636: 7632: 7628: 7624: 7621: 7619: 7615: 7611: 7607: 7604: 7588: 7584: 7580: 7573: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7565: 7564: 7562: 7561: 7558: 7555: 7552: 7549: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7536: 7532: 7524: 7520: 7516: 7512: 7509: 7508: 7507: 7504: 7503: 7501: 7500: 7497: 7494: 7491: 7488: 7482: 7478: 7474: 7470: 7466: 7465: 7464: 7460: 7456: 7449: 7445: 7444: 7443: 7440: 7439: 7437: 7436: 7433: 7430: 7427: 7424: 7417: 7413: 7409: 7404: 7403: 7402: 7399: 7397: 7395: 7389: 7385: 7384: 7383: 7379: 7375: 7371: 7367: 7363: 7360: 7358: 7355: 7354: 7349: 7341: 7338: 7336: 7333: 7332: 7330: 7329: 7326: 7323: 7320: 7317: 7310: 7307: 7305: 7301: 7297: 7292: 7289: 7287: 7284: 7281: 7277: 7273: 7269: 7265: 7261: 7257: 7254: 7252: 7249: 7248: 7247: 7242: 7241: 7236: 7233: 7231: 7227: 7222: 7221: 7216: 7213: 7211: 7207: 7202: 7197: 7196: 7190: 7187: 7185: 7181: 7177: 7173: 7170: 7168: 7164: 7160: 7157:per Joe Roe. 7156: 7153: 7151: 7147: 7143: 7142: 7137: 7134: 7132: 7128: 7124: 7120: 7117: 7111: 7108: 7104: 7099: 7091: 7090: 7089: 7086: 7083: 7073: 7072: 7071: 7068: 7064: 7059: 7051: 7048: 7040: 7036: 7030: 7029: 7024: 7020: 7016: 7013: 7008: 7004: 7003: 7002: 6997: 6994: 6991: 6990: 6981: 6977: 6974: 6967: 6965: 6961: 6957: 6951: 6950: 6945: 6941: 6938: 6934: 6931: 6927: 6923: 6921: 6917: 6914: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6904: 6901: 6897: 6893: 6888: 6884: 6881: 6880: 6879: 6875: 6869: 6868: 6863: 6859: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6849: 6846: 6841: 6837: 6834: 6831: 6825: 6822: 6817: 6815: 6812: 6808: 6803: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6790: 6787: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6771: 6766: 6763: 6761: 6757: 6753: 6749: 6746: 6744: 6741: 6736: 6734:GrammarDamner 6730: 6726: 6723: 6721: 6717: 6713: 6709: 6706: 6698: 6695: 6694: 6689: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6676: 6672: 6665: 6664:JavaHurricane 6661: 6659: 6656: 6655: 6650: 6643: 6639: 6638: 6637: 6634: 6633: 6628: 6621: 6617: 6614: 6603: 6600: 6599: 6597: 6596: 6587: 6586: 6584: 6581: 6580: 6575: 6568: 6563: 6562: 6560: 6556: 6552: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6540: 6539: 6534: 6526: 6522: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6513: 6508: 6503: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6494: 6493: 6488: 6480: 6476: 6472: 6468: 6466: 6463: 6461: 6455: 6452: 6438: 6434: 6430: 6426: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6404: 6401: 6399: 6396: 6395: 6393: 6392: 6391: 6387: 6383: 6378: 6374: 6370: 6366: 6362: 6361: 6360: 6355: 6350: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6341: 6339: 6330: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6320: 6316: 6311: 6307: 6303: 6298: 6295: 6289: 6285: 6281: 6276: 6271: 6270: 6269: 6266: 6263: 6254: 6250: 6246: 6241: 6235: 6230: 6229: 6228: 6224: 6220: 6215: 6212: 6206: 6202: 6198: 6194: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6183: 6179: 6171: 6167: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6158: 6153: 6149: 6145: 6141: 6137: 6133: 6129: 6125: 6121: 6118: 6108: 6104: 6100: 6094: 6090: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6080: 6076: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6065: 6061: 6055: 6051: 6046: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6036: 6032: 6028: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6012: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6000: 5996: 5992: 5991: 5990: 5986: 5982: 5975: 5970: 5969: 5964: 5961: 5959: 5955: 5951: 5947: 5937: 5929: 5926: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5916: 5914: 5912: 5911: 5906: 5902: 5901: 5900: 5895: 5890: 5888: 5887:Novem Linguae 5882: 5880: 5876: 5872: 5868: 5863: 5862: 5861: 5858: 5856: 5854: 5853: 5848: 5847:A. Lorne Weil 5844: 5840: 5836: 5832: 5828: 5824: 5820: 5816: 5811: 5808: 5794: 5789: 5784: 5780: 5776: 5772: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5751: 5747: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5736: 5732: 5728: 5724: 5708: 5703: 5698: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5688: 5685: 5675: 5674: 5673: 5668: 5663: 5658: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5648: 5644: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5633: 5628: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5602: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5574: 5568: 5565: 5562: 5553: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5542: 5537: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5527: 5524: 5516: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5504: 5499: 5494: 5491: 5486: 5483: 5479: 5474: 5470: 5466: 5459: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5448: 5444: 5437: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5403: 5398: 5394: 5389: 5386: 5380: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5362: 5358: 5355: 5351: 5348: 5345: 5341: 5338: 5335: 5334:WP:LISTVERIFY 5331: 5327: 5324: 5323: 5320: 5316: 5311: 5310: 5302: 5299: 5297: 5296: 5290: 5289: 5282: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5245: 5242: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5227: 5224: 5222: 5218: 5217: 5216:contributions 5213: 5206: 5202: 5197: 5193: 5190: 5188: 5183: 5182: 5179: 5175: 5174: 5171: 5166: 5163: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5149: 5146: 5142: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5128: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5118: 5114: 5111: 5109: 5105: 5101: 5098: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5055: 5050: 5047: 5045: 5042: 5041: 5031: 5028: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5006: 5005: 5004: 4999: 4994: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4983: 4979: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4967: 4962: 4958: 4957:a good reason 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4927: 4924: 4922: 4918: 4916: 4912: 4906: 4905: 4890: 4887: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4868: 4863: 4858: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4825: 4822: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4805: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4790: 4787: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4770: 4768: 4763: 4760: 4757: 4756: 4749: 4746: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4723: 4718: 4715: 4712: 4710: 4707: 4703: 4700: 4698: 4693: 4689: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4672: 4670: 4667: 4665: 4659: 4652: 4649: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4638:Pawnkingthree 4634: 4631: 4629: 4626: 4624: 4622: 4616: 4611: 4608: 4606: 4602: 4598: 4589: 4586: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4571: 4568: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4553: 4550: 4548: 4544: 4539: 4534: 4530: 4527: 4525: 4522: 4519: 4518: 4513: 4509: 4506: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4489: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4470: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4455: 4452: 4450: 4446: 4442: 4437: 4434: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4417: 4415: 4412: 4411: 4409: 4408: 4400: 4397: 4395: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4373: 4369: 4366: 4364: 4359: 4354: 4351: 4349: 4346: 4340: 4337: 4331: 4328: 4325: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4310: 4307: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4295: 4294: 4286: 4283: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4268: 4265: 4263: 4260: 4255: 4248: 4245: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4228: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4213: 4209: 4206: 4204: 4201: 4200: 4192: 4189: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4178: 4172: 4169: 4163: 4160: 4158: 4151:Wise words. 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4143: 4141: 4134: 4131: 4129: 4125: 4123: 4121:(interaction) 4118: 4116: 4109: 4106: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4080:Safari Scribe 4076: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4053:other editors 4048: 4045: 4043: 4040: 4034: 4025: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4013: 4006: 4002: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3959: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3942: 3940: 3936: 3930: 3924: 3920: 3917: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3904: 3901: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3884: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3867: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856:Draken Bowser 3853: 3850: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3833: 3829: 3824: 3819: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3809: 3802: 3798: 3795: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3778: 3776: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3760: 3757: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3748: 3742: 3739: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3722: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3705: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3688: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3671: 3669: 3665: 3659: 3644: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3593: 3590: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3573: 3571: 3568: 3563: 3557: 3554: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3545: 3538: 3536: 3533: 3532: 3526: 3525: 3519: 3518: 3511: 3508: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3489:Liars' Legacy 3486: 3482: 3478: 3477:My Monticello 3474: 3469: 3467: 3464: 3462: 3457: 3455: 3449: 3444: 3442: 3439: 3437: 3432: 3430: 3424: 3421: 3419: 3414: 3410: 3409:Generalissima 3404: 3401: 3399: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3384: 3382: 3375: 3372: 3370: 3367: 3365: 3351: 3348: 3346: 3343: 3341: 3332: 3329: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3310: 3307: 3305: 3300: 3299: 3292: 3289: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3272: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3255: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3238: 3236: 3233: 3231: 3230:Reading Beans 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3193: 3189: 3183: 3177: 3174: 3172: 3169: 3166: 3163: 3161: 3158: 3151: 3148: 3147:Fathoms Below 3141: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3099: 3097: 3094: 3092: 3086: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3049: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3032: 3030: 3023: 3017: 3011: 3008: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2993: 2990: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2912: 2910: 2904: 2903: 2898: 2897: 2891: 2886: 2883: 2881: 2876: 2874: 2867: 2865: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2829: 2827: 2821: 2818: 2816: 2812: 2801: 2798: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2781: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2764: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2743: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2732:DoubleGrazing 2729: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2692: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2675: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2643: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2600: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2571: 2562: 2559: 2557: 2554: 2552: 2546: 2543: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2519: 2516: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2501: 2498: 2492: 2491: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2468:net positive. 2467: 2464: 2462: 2458: 2457:Safari Scribe 2453: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2436: 2435: 2429: 2426: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2409: 2408: 2403: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2385: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2365: 2363: 2356: 2353: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2218: 2211: 2208: 2206: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2192: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2158: 2156: 2151: 2150:enter the web 2146: 2138: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2110: 2105: 2101: 2100:volunteer gig 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2043: 2040: 2035: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1993: 1991: 1986: 1976: 1973: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1912: 1909: 1904: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1865:• they/them) 1864: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1631: 1626: 1622: 1619: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1575: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1553: 1548: 1535: 1533: 1529: 1519: 1511: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1473: 1471: 1463: 1461: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1445: 1440: 1437: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1403: 1400: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1355: 1351: 1345: 1342: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1332: 1330: 1327: 1325: 1322: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1310: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1296: 1295: 1293: 1289: 1280: 1275: 1273: 1268: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1250: 1244: 1243: 1241: 1237: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1152: 1151: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1114: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1066: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1051: 1050: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1003: 1002: 999: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 978: 975: 974: 971: 968: 967: 965: 962: 961: 950: 942: 938: 933: 929: 926: 917: 916:the flowchart 913: 908: 904: 901: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 883: 880: 877: 874: 869: 865: 862: 861: 858: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 840: 837: 836: 834: 831: 830: 822: 819: 816: 813: 810: 806: 803: 802: 800: 797: 796: 794: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786:Therapyisgood 773: 769: 765: 758: 754: 750: 749: 748: 745: 741: 737: 736:current draft 733: 729: 728: 726: 722: 719: 718: 717: 714: 710: 703: 695: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 677: 673: 668: 663: 660: 659: 658: 654: 650: 646: 643: 642: 635: 632: 631: 629: 625: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 606: 602: 598: 594: 593: 590: 585: 582: 581: 578: 574: 571: 567: 563: 559: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 538: 534: 530: 529: 526: 523: 522: 520: 515: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 497: 494: 493: 491: 486: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 448: 447: 445: 441: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 422: 418: 414: 410: 409: 407: 402: 399: 398: 396: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 377: 374: 373: 371: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 352: 349: 348: 345: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 326: 323: 322: 320: 317: 311: 308: 307: 305: 302: 300: 296: 295: 294: 291: 290:two questions 287: 275: 271: 268: 267: 265: 262: 257: 252: 249: 248: 246: 243: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 219: 218: 216: 213: 212: 211: 201: 197: 193: 186: 183: 182: 181: 180: 177: 174: 165: 157: 154: 153: 152: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 129: 124: 120: 116: 110: 107: 104: 101: 96: 87: 86: 82: 78: 74: 70: 69: 68: 64: 60: 48: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 9717: 9674: 9567: 9525:did not have 9524: 9506: 9498: 9450: 9383: 9381: 9378:SerialNumber 9377: 9350: 9328: 9326: 9323:SerialNumber 9322: 9315: 9266:JuniperChill 9240:JuniperChill 9211: 9194:HouseBlaster 9011: 8994: 8963: 8942: 8925: 8914:this comment 8910:SilverLocust 8881: 8880: 8794: 8771:do not exist 8770: 8742: 8737: 8713: 8709: 8640: 8636: 8632: 8628: 8624: 8620: 8596: 8561: 8557: 8552: 8534: 8453: 8423: 8401: 8387:AusLondonder 8338:WP:POPULATED 8330: 8327: 8314: 8310: 8299: 8295: 8291: 8290: 8259: 8094: 8078:unreasonable 8077: 7939: 7935: 7901: 7896: 7871: 7766: 7750:violation. 7748:WP:ABOUTSELF 7734: 7730: 7729: 7722: 7718: 7717: 7696: 7661: 7639: 7622: 7610:Hughesdarren 7605: 7559: 7556: 7553: 7550: 7547: 7545: 7522: 7518: 7514: 7498: 7495: 7492: 7489: 7486: 7484: 7476: 7472: 7434: 7431: 7428: 7425: 7422: 7420: 7415: 7411: 7407: 7393: 7388:re-nominated 7361: 7344: 7339: 7327: 7324: 7321: 7318: 7315: 7313: 7309:Weak Oppose. 7308: 7290: 7280:SilverLocust 7275: 7255: 7245: 7243: 7240:SerialNumber 7239: 7234: 7218: 7214: 7194: 7188: 7171: 7154: 7139: 7135: 7118: 7094: 7054: 7049: 7027: 7018: 6988: 6948: 6943: 6939: 6937:TheNuggeteer 6926:SilverLocust 6900:SilverLocust 6866: 6835: 6832: 6798: 6785: 6764: 6747: 6728: 6724: 6707: 6684: 6645: 6623: 6594: 6593: 6590: 6570: 6529: 6520: 6483: 6459: 6453: 6333: 6296: 6274: 6213: 6169: 6119: 6088: 6075:AusLondonder 6031:AusLondonder 5966: 5962: 5909: 5886: 5851: 5809: 5513: 5489: 5416: 5359: 5294: 5293: 5287: 5286: 5243: 5225: 5211: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5178: 5172:Buster Seven 5170: 5164: 5147: 5126: 5125: 5112: 5096: 5054:WP:ADMINACCT 5048: 5034: 5029: 5009:AusLondonder 4931:AusLondonder 4925: 4908: 4903:isinterested 4895: 4888: 4823: 4811:Jeraxmoira🐉 4806: 4788: 4771: 4754: 4747: 4726: 4721: 4716: 4713: 4701: 4673: 4654: 4650: 4632: 4620: 4614: 4609: 4587: 4569: 4551: 4533:The Signpost 4532: 4528: 4516: 4507: 4490: 4453: 4435: 4418: 4406: 4405: 4402: 4398: 4386: 4385: 4377: 4376: 4372:net positive 4367: 4352: 4338: 4289: 4284: 4266: 4246: 4229: 4212:560 articles 4207: 4195: 4190: 4176: 4175: 4170: 4152: 4139: 4132: 4115:—asparagusus 4114: 4107: 4090: 4057:find sources 4046: 4011: 4000: 3978: 3943: 3922: 3918: 3902: 3885: 3868: 3851: 3834: 3800: 3796: 3779: 3769: 3764: 3762: 3758: 3746: 3740: 3723: 3706: 3689: 3672: 3642: 3592:Weak support 3591: 3574: 3555: 3543:Juliancolton 3540: 3528: 3521: 3514: 3509: 3460: 3453: 3447: 3435: 3428: 3422: 3402: 3389: 3388: 3380: 3373: 3349: 3335: 3330: 3313: 3303: 3297: 3296: 3290: 3273: 3256: 3239: 3229: 3212:Innisfree987 3198:Innisfree987 3175: 3146: 3117: 3100: 3090: 3084: 3050: 3033: 3009: 2991: 2974: 2945: 2900: 2894: 2884: 2872: 2863: 2857: 2840: 2825: 2819: 2799: 2782: 2765: 2748: 2744: 2714: 2693: 2676: 2661: 2644: 2624: 2590: 2560: 2550: 2544: 2517: 2486: 2482: 2465: 2451: 2433: 2406: 2401: 2383: 2361: 2354: 2335: 2289: 2284: 2279: 2262: 2228: 2213: 2209: 2193: 2176: 2159: 2136: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2103: 2099: 2080: 2063: 2046: 2027: 1994: 1974: 1953: 1932: 1915: 1896: 1871: 1859:TheresNoTime 1854: 1833:Warm Regards 1832: 1831: 1827: 1810: 1759: 1736: 1731: 1680: 1639: 1620: 1594: 1572: 1550: 1546: 1481: 1469: 1459: 1451: 1426:JuniperChill 1421: 1401: 1246: 1245: 1233: 1232: 1212: 1206: 1200: 1194: 1188: 1182: 1175: 1168: 1162: 1139: 1117: 1112: 1103: 1102: 1093: 1087: 1083: 1074: 1073: 1052: 1046: 1037: 1036: 1004: 997: 988: 987: 976: 969: 963: 949: 940: 936: 932: 924: 863: 856: 847: 846: 838: 832: 809:WP:EMERGENCY 798: 792: 783: 782: 720: 693: 684: 683: 661: 644: 633: 623: 614: 613: 583: 557: 548: 547: 524: 518: 513: 504: 503: 495: 489: 484: 475: 474: 457: 453: 449: 439: 430: 429: 400: 394: 385: 384: 375: 369: 363:TheNuggeteer 360: 359: 350: 343: 337:HouseBlaster 334: 333: 324: 318: 309: 303: 289: 282: 269: 263: 250: 244: 220: 214: 209: 184: 164:over at ORCP 160: 155: 127: 108: 102: 93: 72: 71: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 9428:section of 9286:NotAGenious 9225:• he/they) 9154:• she/her) 9065:• she/her) 8918:Kevin Sagra 8556:verdict in 8184:WP:DRAFTIFY 8016:KylieTastic 7922:KylieTastic 7770:scope_creep 7712:Scope creep 7700:scope_creep 7007:SMcCandlish 6989:SMcCandlish 6883:Kevin Sagra 6840:Kevin Sagra 6729:very recent 6475:Lauren Chen 6471:Tenet Media 6337:scope_creep 6027:WP:DRAFTIFY 5877:• she/her) 5469:WP:DRAFTIFY 4872:KylieTastic 4755:SMcCandlish 4657:Malinaccier 4603:▪ she/her) 4593:Dimensional 4575:KylieTastic 4156:scope_creep 3597:Lauren Chen 3415:) (it/she) 3339:scope_creep 3126:her CSD log 3070:Ad Orientem 3055:Ad Orientem 2931:Floquenbeam 2916:Floquenbeam 2787:Newyorkbrad 2753:Daniel Case 2551:Josey Wales 2505:– robertsky 2285:DreamRimmer 2051:GraziePrego 2013:Vanamonde93 1999:Vanamonde93 1958:Cooljeanius 1935:of course! 1907:Mississippi 1830:- Why not? 1586:• he/they) 1564:• he/they) 1395:• she/her) 1370:User rights 1360:CentralAuth 1009:WP:INVOLVED 628:WP:INVOLVED 536:activities. 354:situations. 328:a good one! 148:• she/her) 55:(163/32/10) 9679:LawNerd123 9654:advised me 9607:Clovermoss 9573:Clovermoss 9453:discussion 9451:trainwreck 9406:Clovermoss 9300:ObserveOwl 9233:How did I 9198:asilvering 9123:asilvering 9089:Polygnotus 9037:WP:MONITOR 8896:Bobby Cohn 8886:Bobby Cohn 8767:WP:DRAFTNO 8264:Tryptofish 8224:Tryptofish 8180:Tryptofish 8166:Tryptofish 8149:Clovermoss 8141:Tryptofish 8116:Tryptofish 8101:asilvering 8096:consensus? 8082:Tryptofish 8012:Tryptofish 7984:important. 7960:asilvering 7945:Tryptofish 7907:Tryptofish 7735:recipients 7723:recipients 7646:EPRICAVARK 7416:thirty-one 7408:thirty-one 7138:per Owen. 7078:Clovermoss 6712:Jessintime 6258:Clovermoss 6045:WP:DRAFTNO 5974:WP:NPPHOUR 5948:(he/him • 5910:Ritchie333 5852:Ritchie333 5779:WP:NPPHOUR 5775:WP:DRAFTNO 5680:Clovermoss 5557:Clovermoss 5519:Clovermoss 5458:Asilvering 5422:asilvering 5382:retention. 4842:Tryptofish 4735:Tryptofish 4557:Goldsztajn 4320:Clovermoss 3906:ForksForks 3694:PARAKANYAA 3579:Epicgenius 3038:Ganesha811 2997:Lightburst 2770:Ryan shell 2649:PhilKnight 2391:talk to me 2369:talk to me 2269:(he/him • 2143:TWOrantula 2122:Netherzone 2118:incivility 2085:Netherzone 1783:WP:NPPSORT 1745:asilvering 1705:asilvering 1547:supporting 1486:Polygnotus 1439:* Pppery * 1407:Clovermoss 1353:Cross-wiki 1339:AfD closes 1148:Discussion 907:autopatrol 676:notability 651:(he/him • 597:Ganesha811 551:Ganesha811 478:an IP user 413:Tryptofish 388:Tryptofish 299:Lightburst 169:Clovermoss 90:Nomination 31:successful 9637:Cremastra 9549:WP:BEFORE 9375:comment. 8964:Toadspike 8365:Charlotte 8244:(she/her) 8190:(she/her) 7902:criticize 7831:(she/her) 7804:(she/her) 7733:numerous 7578:(she/her) 7572:Snow Rise 7530:(she/her) 7511:Snow Rise 7481:WP:BEFORE 7454:(she/her) 7448:Snow Rise 7414:of those 7394:Toadspike 7220:Jauerback 7023:WP:BEFORE 7012:WP:REFUND 6973:WP:REFUND 6913:🍗TheNugg 6896:WP:NACTOR 6890:evaluate 6845:🍗TheNugg 6821:EggRoll97 6770:EggRoll97 6692:Hurricane 6670:(she/her) 6653:Hurricane 6631:Hurricane 6620:corrected 6578:Hurricane 6550:Aaron Liu 6537:Hurricane 6525:WP:BEFORE 6491:Hurricane 6403:Urucuiana 6193:WP:BKCRIT 6177:(she/her) 6148:WP:BEFORE 6054:badgering 5764:WP:GENREF 5465:WP:MINREF 5442:(she/her) 5288:Wolverine 5196:Matrix(!) 5194:per nom — 5117:FlyingAce 4731:WP:BEFORE 4727:slow down 4706:Alalch E. 4621:Toadspike 4459:Rocfan275 4258:(discuss) 4234:—Femke 🐦 4177:North8000 3873:Nagol0929 3677:Ajraddatz 3627:Aaron Liu 3610:Aaron Liu 3381:fanfanboy 2768:per nom! 2628:Hameltion 2593:Charlotte 2591:Fuck yes 2532:Cremastra 2267:Shushugah 2216:Dr vulpes 2164:MPGuy2824 2038:Theorist❤ 1876:Jenny8lee 1728:WP:BEFORE 1664:Ingenuity 1404:per nom. 1334:AfD votes 1329:BLP edits 1198:block log 1118:currently 1077:Andrew D. 763:(she/her) 649:Shushugah 617:Shushugah 540:studying. 507:Cullen328 191:(she/her) 9736:Category 9053:Thanks, 8926:everyone 8862:action. 8718:Levivich 8679:Levivich 8648:Levivich 8539:Levivich 8502:Levivich 8436:contribs 8311:Resonant 8296:Resonant 8030:Levivich 7995:Cheers, 7693:WP:PROMO 7477:requires 7374:Apocheir 7296:Jclemens 7123:Ingratis 7106:Chequers 7066:Chequers 6810:Chequers 6781:. Best, 6197:ProfGray 6173:access. 5995:Levivich 5643:Levivich 5152:Kazamzam 5086:contribs 5067:contribs 4794:ProfGray 4776:Ammarpad 4692:Articles 4688:Contribs 4678:Johannes 4482:contribs 4360:(he/him) 4309:darkness 4306:Intothat 4288:!votes. 4253:Hawkeye7 4217:Aszx5000 3784:SchroCat 3711:Ahri Boy 3429:Schazjmd 3130:jlwoodwa 2820:Support. 2636:contribs 2579:contribs 2522:entirely 2384:Deadbeef 2362:Deadbeef 2321:Levivich 2302:Levivich 2068:Let'srun 2033:❤History 1966:contribs 1945:contribs 1846:contribs 1838:Miminity 1785:and the 1685:WP:BATON 1612:contribs 1600:Chaotic 1312:Analysis 1291:Counters 1166:contribs 1040:The ed17 991:Hawkeye7 566:Catch-22 466:negative 462:positive 433:Levivich 111:she/her) 106:contribs 73:Monitors 59:Primefac 9659:Bruxton 9545:his RFA 9457:Cryptic 9318:WP:CENT 9262:juniper 9217:Blaster 9012:Neutral 8943:Neutral 8935:Cryptic 8882:Support 8738:Braden' 8424:Neutral 8413:MemeGod 8402:Neutral 8292:Support 7988:others. 7972:When I 7897:(moved) 7891:Neutral 7741:website 7627:Ciridae 7515:minimum 7270:). See 6982:content 6916:eteer🍗 6848:eteer🍗 6752:Johnbod 6521:digress 6460:Acebulf 6310:WP:BITE 5925:Cryptic 5833:tag on 5413:Joe Roe 5352:needed 5244:Support 5226:Support 5212:useless 5192:Support 5165:Support 5148:Support 5127:Support 5113:Support 5100:Bruxton 5097:Support 5049:Support 5030:Support 4926:Support 4899:ctively 4889:Support 4824:Support 4807:Support 4789:Support 4772:Support 4714:Support 4702:Support 4674:Support 4651:Support 4633:Support 4610:Support 4588:Support 4570:Support 4552:Support 4529:Support 4508:Support 4491:Support 4454:Support 4441:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ 4436:Support 4419:Support 4399:Support 4368:Support 4353:Support 4339:Support 4285:Support 4267:Support 4247:Support 4230:Support 4208:Support 4198:Spencer 4191:Support 4171:Support 4133:Support 4108:Support 4091:Support 4047:Support 4005:WP:RRFA 4001:Support 3944:Support 3919:Support 3903:Support 3886:Support 3869:Support 3852:Support 3835:Support 3807:Dylnuge 3801:readers 3797:Support 3780:Support 3759:Support 3741:Support 3728:Maproom 3724:Support 3707:Support 3690:Support 3673:Support 3643:Support 3605:WP:BOLD 3575:Support 3556:Support 3510:Support 3471:about. 3448:support 3423:Support 3403:Support 3374:Support 3350:Support 3331:Support 3318:Enos733 3314:Support 3291:Support 3278:Maliner 3274:Support 3261:Coeusin 3257:Support 3240:Support 3176:Support 3118:Support 3101:Support 3085:Support 3051:Support 3034:Support 3010:Support 2992:Support 2975:Support 2946:Support 2885:Support 2858:Support 2841:Support 2810:Writer 2800:Support 2783:Support 2766:Support 2745:Support 2730:A-OK -- 2718:Leijurv 2715:Support 2694:Support 2677:Support 2669:Snowman 2662:Support 2645:Support 2625:Support 2561:Support 2545:Support 2518:Support 2483:Support 2466:Support 2452:Support 2402:Support 2355:Support 2336:Support 2280:Support 2263:Support 2229:Support 2210:Support 2194:Support 2181:Pbritti 2177:Support 2160:Support 2137:Support 2081:Support 2064:Support 2047:Support 2028:Support 1995:Support 1975:Support 1954:Support 1933:Support 1920:Carrite 1916:Support 1897:Support 1872:Support 1855:Support 1828:Support 1815:Loopy30 1811:Support 1760:Support 1681:Support 1640:Support 1625:WP:ORCP 1621:Support 1595:Support 1578:Blaster 1556:Blaster 1522:he/they 1482:Support 1452:Support 1422:Support 1402:Support 1382:Support 1344:CSD log 1173:deleted 944:author. 753:Cryptic 744:Cryptic 713:Cryptic 709:CAT:CSD 687:Cryptic 532:energy. 313:review. 9675:Oppose 9614:(talk) 9580:(talk) 9413:(talk) 9345:T:CENT 9258:clover 9235:manage 9180:(talk) 8995:really 8922:WP:DRV 8812:part. 8743:Ahrens 8641:Ahrens 8637:Braden 8633:Braden 8629:Braden 8625:Ahrens 8621:Braden 8562:Ahrens 8558:Braden 8456:buidhe 8156:(talk) 7872:Oppose 7640:Oppose 7623:Oppose 7606:Oppose 7362:Oppose 7340:Oppose 7291:Oppose 7272:WP:CSD 7235:Oppose 7215:Oppose 7189:Oppose 7172:Oppose 7155:Oppose 7136:Oppose 7119:Oppose 7085:(talk) 7050:Oppose 6892:WP:GNG 6858:WP:GNG 6833:Oppose 6765:Oppose 6748:Oppose 6725:Oppose 6708:Oppose 6454:Oppose 6297:Oppose 6265:(talk) 6214:Oppose 6130:, and 6120:Oppose 5963:Oppose 5831:WP:G12 5823:WP:A10 5810:Oppose 5687:(talk) 5564:(talk) 5526:(talk) 5473:WP:NPP 5307:Oppose 5185:(UTC) 4615:should 4596:Fusion 4499:(talk) 4388:apolis 4344:Bastun 4327:(talk) 4055:often 4012:Sirdog 3934:(nest) 3747:Rzuwig 3566:rabbit 3436:(talk) 3298:Volten 3181:Nobody 3155:(talk) 3091:~delta 2890:Utopes 2832:(Talk) 2826:Bgsu98 2807:Cactus 2681:jengod 2566:Vacant 2528:plants 2496:(talk) 2221:(Talk) 2202:(talk) 2139:. Ok. 1984:(talk) 1889:Mach61 1724:WP:GNG 1697:WP:NPP 1693:WP:AfC 1540:leeky 1517:sawyer 1414:(talk) 1298:XTools 899:, and 672:verify 577:a note 406:xTools 176:(talk) 53:Final 9449:this 9435:Nsk92 9384:54129 9329:54129 9316:FYI, 9213:House 9146:! :) 8978:Fangz 8948:Fangz 8864:Fangz 8814:Fangz 8799:Fangz 8776:Fangz 8747:Fangz 8708:have 8583:Fangz 8428:Kline 7721:many 7446:Hi, @ 7412:eight 7352:River 7347:Ghost 7246:54129 7226:dude. 7195:novov 7141:Andre 7102:Spiel 7062:Spiel 7028:Sohom 6949:Sohom 6930:WP:G4 6867:Sohom 6862:WP:G4 6806:Spiel 6507:Owen× 6280:Hobit 6275:meant 6243:(see 6234:Hobit 6219:Hobit 6170:prior 6166:OwenX 6152:Owen× 5954:edits 5942:Dylan 5843:WP:G4 5837:(see 5746:Fangz 5731:Fangz 5205:talk? 4423:S0091 4140:Ponyo 4095:Iostn 3839:Nemov 3657:alien 3561:Recon 3491:? Or 3487:? Or 3483:? Or 3454:Tails 3390:block 2873:☁＝☁＝✈ 2666:Giant 2434:Sohom 2407:Sohom 2315:them. 1574:House 1552:House 1236:civil 1180:count 925:Notes 702:db-r2 589:bitey 573:notes 286:limit 128:Titan 65:) at 16:< 9705:talk 9683:talk 9663:talk 9641:talk 9558:talk 9515:talk 9490:talk 9470:talk 9439:talk 9358:talk 9304:talk 9290:talk 9270:talk 9254:leek 9244:talk 9223:talk 9202:talk 9176:L3X1 9162:L3X1 9152:talk 9138:L3X1 9127:talk 9119:L3X1 9105:L3X1 9093:talk 9077:talk 9063:talk 9045:talk 9020:talk 8982:talk 8952:talk 8900:talk 8890:talk 8868:talk 8848:talk 8818:talk 8803:talk 8780:talk 8722:talk 8683:talk 8652:talk 8587:talk 8543:talk 8506:talk 8492:talk 8473:talk 8432:talk 8391:talk 8376:talk 8350:talk 8319:tion 8304:tion 8268:talk 8249:talk 8228:talk 8212:Sdkb 8195:talk 8170:talk 8120:talk 8105:talk 8086:talk 8034:talk 8020:talk 7999:Sdkb 7964:talk 7949:talk 7940:will 7936:dare 7926:talk 7911:talk 7881:talk 7859:talk 7836:talk 7823:Hi, 7809:talk 7756:talk 7681:talk 7652:talk 7631:talk 7614:talk 7583:talk 7560:Rise 7535:talk 7523:keep 7499:Rise 7467:Hi, 7459:talk 7435:Rise 7378:talk 7328:Rise 7300:talk 7278:"). 7180:talk 7176:WWGB 7163:talk 7127:talk 7097:Ϣere 7057:Ϣere 7034:talk 6955:talk 6894:and 6873:talk 6801:Ϣere 6756:talk 6716:talk 6687:Java 6675:talk 6662:Hi, 6648:Java 6626:Java 6595:ULPS 6573:Java 6567:PDEs 6555:talk 6532:Java 6519:I'd 6486:Java 6433:talk 6425:AKAF 6415:talk 6411:AKAF 6386:talk 6382:AKAF 6369:talk 6354:talk 6319:talk 6315:AKAF 6284:talk 6223:talk 6201:talk 6182:talk 6132:this 6128:this 6124:this 6089:less 6079:talk 6035:talk 5999:talk 5950:talk 5894:talk 5875:talk 5788:talk 5750:talk 5735:talk 5702:talk 5667:talk 5647:talk 5632:talk 5616:talk 5601:talk 5594:. – 5582:talk 5541:talk 5503:talk 5447:talk 5426:talk 5402:talk 5364:was 5342:and 5328:was 5275:talk 5235:talk 5201:user 5180:Talk 5156:talk 5136:talk 5104:talk 5082:talk 5063:talk 5039:5969 5036:Onel 5013:talk 4998:talk 4982:talk 4966:talk 4955:for 4951:and 4935:talk 4876:talk 4846:talk 4832:talk 4815:talk 4798:talk 4780:talk 4739:talk 4682:Talk 4663:talk 4642:talk 4601:talk 4579:talk 4561:talk 4543:talk 4521:path 4512:here 4484:) @ 4478:talk 4463:talk 4427:talk 4407:ULPS 4379:Mini 4292:Mkdw 4276:talk 4238:talk 4221:talk 4182:talk 4099:talk 4065:talk 4038:Talk 4029:Grab 4018:talk 3990:talk 3969:talk 3952:talk 3923:does 3910:talk 3894:talk 3877:talk 3860:talk 3843:talk 3823:talk 3788:talk 3732:talk 3715:talk 3698:talk 3681:talk 3663:talk 3654:ugly 3632:talk 3615:talk 3583:talk 3530:yaya 3516:Just 3501:talk 3450:! ~ 3413:talk 3322:talk 3282:talk 3265:talk 3248:talk 3216:talk 3202:talk 3187:talk 3165:Step 3142:Hi! 3134:talk 3109:talk 3074:talk 3059:talk 3042:talk 3015:ZLEA 3001:talk 2983:talk 2935:talk 2920:talk 2902:cont 2896:talk 2868:🛪 ( 2849:talk 2791:talk 2774:talk 2757:talk 2736:talk 2722:talk 2706:talk 2685:talk 2653:talk 2632:talk 2604:talk 2575:talk 2536:talk 2509:talk 2474:talk 2440:talk 2413:talk 2389:→∞ ( 2367:→∞ ( 2346:talk 2325:talk 2306:talk 2291:talk 2271:talk 2252:talk 2237:talk 2185:talk 2168:talk 2126:talk 2089:talk 2072:talk 2055:talk 2017:talk 2003:talk 1962:talk 1941:talk 1937:Elli 1924:talk 1902:Star 1880:talk 1863:talk 1842:talk 1819:talk 1800:talk 1768:talk 1749:talk 1709:talk 1695:and 1608:talk 1602:Enby 1584:talk 1562:talk 1538:both 1527:talk 1514:... 1504:talk 1490:talk 1470:sigh 1430:talk 1393:talk 1225:here 1210:rfar 1192:logs 1160:talk 1068:out. 1061:keep 1007:Per 954:page 939:and 768:talk 757:BLAR 742:)? — 653:talk 601:talk 564:and 454:from 417:talk 196:talk 146:talk 100:talk 81:talk 63:talk 9507:can 9005:\\ 8714:you 8710:not 8484:ltb 8468:Joe 8408:Sir 8316:tor 8313:Dis 8301:tor 8298:Dis 7260:Q15 6998:😼 6978:now 6473:or 6349:Joe 6304:or 5945:620 5783:Joe 5697:Joe 5662:Joe 5627:Joe 5596:Joe 5536:Joe 5498:Joe 5436:Joe 5417:one 5397:Joe 5385:Liz 5248:--> 4993:Joe 4961:Joe 4913:» ° 4893:LCU 4891:-- 4764:😼 4690:) ( 4538:Bri 4517:Syn 4473:Tol 3982:ltb 3961:ltb 3818:Joe 3651:big 3648:The 3304:001 3168:hen 3124:in 3122:G4s 2749:But 2708:) 2489:A09 2341:Rjj 2198:PMC 1964:) ( 1844:) ( 1732:did 1689:G4s 1542:and 1216:spi 1186:AfD 1113:23. 1084:22. 1047:21. 998:20. 964:19. 857:18. 833:17. 814:).. 793:16. 694:15. 645:14. 624:13. 570:two 558:12. 514:11. 490:you 485:10. 288:of 138:NPP 117:on 9738:: 9707:) 9685:) 9665:) 9643:) 9610:🍀 9576:🍀 9560:) 9517:) 9492:) 9472:) 9441:) 9409:🍀 9306:) 9292:) 9284:. 9272:) 9246:) 9204:) 9129:) 9095:) 9079:) 9047:) 9039:. 9022:) 8984:) 8954:) 8931:G7 8902:) 8870:) 8850:) 8820:) 8805:) 8782:) 8759:) 8757:💬 8755:( 8724:) 8685:) 8654:) 8589:) 8574:) 8572:💬 8570:( 8545:) 8508:) 8494:) 8488:l☃ 8466:– 8452:) 8448:· 8434:• 8430:• 8393:) 8379:) 8373:• 8352:) 8270:) 8251:) 8230:) 8208:. 8197:) 8172:) 8152:🍀 8122:) 8107:) 8088:) 8066:💬 8036:) 8022:) 7966:) 7951:) 7943:-- 7928:) 7913:) 7883:) 7861:) 7838:) 7811:) 7758:) 7683:) 7655:) 7633:) 7616:) 7585:) 7537:) 7461:) 7380:) 7372:. 7302:) 7283:💬 7274:(" 7205:c) 7200:(t 7182:) 7165:) 7146:🚐 7129:) 7081:🍀 7037:) 6986:— 6958:) 6903:💬 6898:. 6876:) 6758:) 6718:) 6677:) 6557:) 6477:. 6435:) 6417:) 6388:) 6371:) 6321:) 6286:) 6261:🍀 6255:. 6225:) 6203:) 6184:) 6142:, 6138:, 6126:, 6105:) 6103:💬 6101:( 6081:) 6066:) 6064:💬 6062:( 6037:) 6017:) 6015:💬 6013:( 6001:) 5987:) 5985:💬 5983:( 5956:) 5952:• 5752:) 5737:) 5683:🍀 5649:) 5625:– 5618:) 5584:) 5560:🍀 5554:. 5522:🍀 5449:) 5428:) 5295:XI 5277:) 5252:Mt 5250:🌿 5237:) 5219:} 5207:- 5203:- 5158:) 5138:) 5106:) 5088:) 5084:/ 5069:) 5065:/ 5015:) 4984:) 4937:) 4915:∆t 4878:) 4870:— 4848:) 4834:) 4817:) 4800:) 4782:) 4752:— 4741:) 4722:do 4684:) 4676:-- 4644:) 4581:) 4563:) 4545:) 4480:| 4465:) 4447:) 4429:) 4401:. 4323:🍀 4278:) 4240:) 4223:) 4184:) 4101:) 4067:) 4035:- 4032:Up 4020:) 3992:) 3986:l☃ 3971:) 3965:l☃ 3954:) 3912:) 3896:) 3879:) 3862:) 3845:) 3790:) 3734:) 3717:) 3700:) 3683:) 3666:) 3634:) 3617:) 3585:) 3547:| 3539:– 3503:) 3461:Wx 3324:) 3316:-- 3284:) 3267:) 3250:) 3218:) 3204:) 3190:) 3136:) 3111:) 3076:) 3061:) 3044:) 3003:) 2985:) 2965:💬 2937:) 2922:) 2914:-- 2899:/ 2878:) 2851:) 2804:— 2793:) 2776:) 2759:) 2738:) 2724:) 2700:. 2687:) 2655:) 2638:) 2634:| 2607:) 2601:• 2577:• 2538:) 2530:. 2525:by 2511:) 2476:) 2443:) 2416:) 2393:) 2380:0x 2371:) 2358:0x 2348:) 2327:) 2308:) 2294:) 2273:) 2254:) 2239:) 2200:♠ 2187:) 2170:) 2128:) 2091:) 2074:) 2057:) 2019:) 2005:) 1987:@ 1968:) 1947:) 1943:| 1926:) 1882:) 1848:) 1836:, 1821:) 1802:) 1770:) 1751:) 1711:) 1674:) 1670:• 1614:) 1610:· 1524:* 1520:* 1506:) 1492:) 1432:) 1410:🍀 1204:lu 1140:A: 1132:, 1124:, 1094:A: 1053:A: 1005:A: 970:A: 896:, 893:, 890:, 887:, 884:, 881:, 878:, 864:A: 839:A: 799:A: 770:) 738:; 721:A: 705:}} 699:{{ 662:A: 655:) 634:A: 603:) 584:A: 525:A: 496:A: 458:to 450:A: 444:or 440:9. 419:) 401:A: 395:8. 376:A: 370:7. 351:A: 344:6. 325:A: 319:5. 310:A: 304:4. 270:A: 264:3. 251:A: 245:2. 233:G5 229:G4 221:A: 215:1. 198:) 172:🍀 166:! 83:) 75:: 36:. 9703:( 9681:( 9661:( 9639:( 9556:( 9513:( 9488:( 9468:( 9437:( 9372:: 9368:@ 9360:) 9356:( 9339:@ 9302:( 9288:( 9268:( 9242:( 9221:( 9200:( 9150:( 9140:: 9136:@ 9125:( 9117:@ 9091:( 9075:( 9061:( 9043:( 9018:( 8980:( 8950:( 8898:( 8888:( 8866:( 8846:( 8816:( 8801:( 8778:( 8720:( 8681:( 8650:( 8585:( 8541:( 8504:( 8490:( 8486:d 8475:) 8471:( 8450:c 8446:t 8389:( 8367:( 8348:( 8266:( 8247:( 8226:( 8193:( 8168:( 8143:: 8139:@ 8118:( 8103:( 8084:( 8060:A 8057:F 8054:C 8032:( 8018:( 7962:( 7947:( 7924:( 7909:( 7879:( 7857:( 7834:( 7807:( 7754:( 7737:. 7710:@ 7679:( 7649:( 7644:L 7629:( 7612:( 7581:( 7557:w 7554:o 7551:n 7548:S 7533:( 7496:w 7493:o 7490:n 7487:S 7457:( 7432:w 7429:o 7426:n 7423:S 7376:( 7325:w 7322:o 7319:n 7316:S 7298:( 7223:/ 7178:( 7161:( 7125:( 7031:( 7005:@ 6996:¢ 6993:☏ 6952:( 6935:@ 6924:@ 6870:( 6754:( 6714:( 6673:( 6553:( 6511:☎ 6431:( 6423:@ 6413:( 6384:( 6367:( 6356:) 6352:( 6317:( 6282:( 6236:: 6232:@ 6221:( 6199:( 6180:( 6156:☎ 6144:6 6140:5 6136:4 6077:( 6033:( 5997:( 5923:— 5896:) 5892:( 5873:( 5790:) 5786:( 5748:( 5733:( 5704:) 5700:( 5669:) 5665:( 5645:( 5634:) 5630:( 5614:( 5603:) 5599:( 5580:( 5543:) 5539:( 5505:) 5501:( 5460:: 5456:@ 5445:( 5424:( 5411:@ 5404:) 5400:( 5336:. 5273:( 5270:y 5267:n 5264:a 5261:t 5258:o 5255:B 5233:( 5198:{ 5154:( 5134:( 5102:( 5080:( 5061:( 5011:( 5000:) 4996:( 4980:( 4968:) 4964:( 4933:( 4917:° 4911:@ 4909:« 4901:D 4897:A 4874:( 4844:( 4830:( 4813:( 4796:( 4778:( 4762:¢ 4759:☏ 4737:( 4694:) 4686:( 4680:( 4666:) 4660:( 4640:( 4599:( 4577:( 4559:( 4541:( 4476:( 4461:( 4445:ᴛ 4443:( 4425:( 4274:( 4236:( 4219:( 4180:( 4097:( 4073:@ 4063:( 4016:( 3988:( 3984:d 3967:( 3963:d 3950:( 3908:( 3892:( 3875:( 3858:( 3841:( 3825:) 3821:( 3786:( 3770:Ø 3765:N 3730:( 3713:( 3696:( 3679:( 3660:( 3630:( 3613:( 3581:( 3523:i 3512:- 3499:( 3411:( 3393:) 3387:( 3362:G 3359:M 3356:G 3320:( 3293:- 3280:( 3263:( 3246:( 3214:( 3200:( 3184:( 3132:( 3107:( 3072:( 3057:( 3053:- 3040:( 3026:\ 3021:T 2999:( 2981:( 2959:A 2956:F 2953:C 2933:( 2918:( 2905:) 2893:( 2847:( 2789:( 2772:( 2755:( 2734:( 2720:( 2704:( 2683:( 2651:( 2630:( 2595:( 2581:) 2573:( 2569:0 2534:( 2507:( 2493:| 2472:( 2437:( 2410:( 2344:( 2323:( 2304:( 2288:( 2250:( 2235:( 2183:( 2166:( 2152:) 2148:( 2124:( 2087:( 2070:( 2053:( 2015:( 2001:( 1960:( 1939:( 1922:( 1878:( 1861:( 1840:( 1817:( 1798:( 1766:( 1747:( 1707:( 1672:c 1668:t 1666:( 1662:— 1606:( 1582:( 1560:( 1502:( 1488:( 1474:) 1466:( 1456:— 1428:( 1391:( 1278:e 1271:t 1264:v 1228:. 1218:) 1213:· 1207:· 1201:· 1195:· 1189:· 1183:· 1176:· 1169:· 1163:· 1158:( 1031:. 766:( 734:( 599:( 464:/ 415:( 194:( 144:( 109:· 103:· 98:( 79:( 61:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Significa liberdade - Knowledge

Index