Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Deacon of Pndapetzim

1966:- I've already done a less-articulate "support" above, but I would like to concur with Mais Oui's comments here. As someone who was also raised to be a straight talker, I agree that much of what is being called "civility issues" is a matter of cultural difference. Deacon does important work in areas that are sometimes prone to ethnic and political conflict (for instance Gaelic vs English, Scottish History, naming conventions and other designations that can have a lot of political history and baggage). The fact that he has not run away from these areas of WP, and has instead shown leadership in these difficult areas, means he has faced some opposition and pissed some people off. While those raised to be less direct in their style of communication may not always appreciate how he has handled some of these conflicts, I have to say that the ability to demonstrate leadership in stressful situations is a necessary quality for an admin. Deacon has shown that he has that qualification. - 192:

be, little more than ability to use a rather limited "mop and bucket" when and if required. That said, among new-comers, an admin is often perceived as having authority, and so I'd be keen to use that to prevent new-comers being alienated. Blocking is over-used and misused by some admins, and I'm not sure the extent to which they realise blocking can send users (who could be good) into the badlands, into the outskirts of ordered wikipedia life with nothing to lose. When this happens more work is created for regular users (including administrators), and now and then a potentially good content contributor is lost. It's of course about using one's judgment in the particular case, but in general ... to understate a little ... I'd be leaning towards "the last opinion" camp, certainly when it comes to users with a clear interest in creating content.

510:

happening in neutral terms and a "cool down" recommendation, on the article talk page and/or their user pages with a message about edit warring. The next step would be protecting the page, which if it's confined to one article is the same as a cool down block without the perceived slight. If that didn't help, I either leave a description of what's happening to other administrators or issue a polite but firm warning. There are enough admins these days to seek input about something like a block. If the situation was so extreme that even after that continued intervention was necessary, I'd consider a cool down block. Again, I'm not a fan of blocking for many reasons, including some I stated above.

212::Good question. Whenever I finish something, I'm often unsatisfied with the end product, esp. when I learn more about whatever topic it is later or after I've processed the material more thoroughly in my head. I do have 4 FAs, and I dunno, about half a dozen GAs (haven't been counting). My article creations have focused for the past wee while on creating articles on the bishops of medieval Scotland. I started doing this because, quite honestly, I knew no-one else would ever do it. I started off doing stubs and starts using only one or two sources for the main Scottish bishoprics, St Andrews and Glasgow. As I've progressed I've put more work in, becoming more substantial through 171:: I'm fundamentally a content contributor, and cannot ever foresee myself acting solely or even mostly as a "mandarin". What I enjoy about wikipedia is writing stuff and co-operating with other users interested in writing similar stuff. That's why I'm here, and what brings me here continually. Over my years on wikipedia I've had little spurts of recent changes patrolling (only yesterday indeed was my last), and for what it's worth I would do more of this if granted the "mop and bucket" ... though I'll say it's quite competitive these days. Much harder to beat the bots and other patrollers to the vandalism and the playful anonymous editing! As I thoroughly understand 3310:- during which I unfortunately allowed myself to get a little riled. The user repeatedly moved pages ignoring an existing naming convention. I moved them back, and they reverted the move. They then claimed that there have never been any consensus on the issue, despite evidence - and tried to remove evidence that there had been a consensus, ignored any attempts at compromise and insinuated collusion on IRC. When another presented a proposal which would have altered the existing guidelines to prefer the disambiguator Deacon insisted on, Deacon left on a wikibreak, and despite returning a week later, did not attempt to build a new consensus either way. 817:, where, just as love songs are more meaningful with a broken heart, it may seem a little more relevant to me given some of what this review has produced, esp. the 2nd section. Certainly, it cannot be overstated that in the unfortunate circumstances of the exercise of powers over peers, diplomacy is a bigger priority than in normal editing. This was something I stressed above, and have always thought to be important. I'd also add that an admin (or anyone) is more likely to succeed at diffusing conflict if both sides are approached with respect. So it's important to any kind of intervention. 3441:. I was working from memory. It may sound like an excuse, and I suppose it is, but Cool Down Blocks didn't get marked so significantly as proper-ish nouns until the middle of last year. I was responding to the question without reference to policy, which was my mistake, but as the answer didn't depart from policy very much (other than omitting reference to it, which was what the question in hindsight was clearly aiming for), I'm not sure it's really evidence for concluding that I favour them, which I assure everyone explicitly I do not. Regards, 1921:). Anyway, I will probably not be voting again in these daft popularity contests, because I don't have much time for Admins as a species, a few of whom are downright scoundrels in my opinion. Like Calgacus/Deacon I myself have the very Scottish cultural trait of saying exactly what I think. I don't know about other people, but we Scots tend to trust a straight-talker, and be very wary indeed of sweet-talkers, who can turn out to be the worst type of venemous serpent. Deacon is 709:, and (in the particular circumstances) suspect it'll go to the limit or beyond, then anytime after the 2nd revert may be good. You may start typing after the second and find by saving stage that the third has occurred already, and if you wait until the third it may be too late. If on the other hand you remind an experienced user of WP:3RR at the second revert, it may be taken as a little annoying and patronising. Thus circumstances are all important. You tend to find on 3195:. I made an edit in good faith but Deacon seems to imply I did not. He did not contact me for an explanation or my views, and again acts more as a "joker", mocking others' views rather than behaving like a mediator. In this capacity, I wouldn't feel comfortable with Deacon having administrator status. I do not think his mediation skills are developed enough and his manner, dare I say civility, with those with alternative perspectives leaves much to be desired. 1556:. The Deacon is very knowledgeable and adding the admin tools will make him able to contribute to Knowledge. I am slightly concerned that he'll be diverted into admin tasks when he might be more valuable as an article editor, but that's his choice. I have thought about the civility concerns, and looked at some recent interactions of his, and I think he is blunt and sometimes not particularly tactful. I'd urge him to err on the side of tact in the future. 1566:

come across as a device for side-tracking the dialogue. I've become aware at least that the relationship between my perception of my tone and the perception of it by others needs to converge in the latter direction. Some of the things that may look bad were honestly written in a melo and pleasant state of mind! In consolation, clumsiness is usually quite easy to fix once you're aware of it. I'll only try my best. Regards,

3251:, not to mention the way he harasses every user who disagrees with him in a debate by adding snide little comments under their contributions. I don't dispute that he is intelligent and knows a lot about his "specialist subjects". He is, unfortunately, also unbelievably arrogant and offensive. Were he to be given admin tools, he would undoubtedly use them to impose his own strong opinions on others. 425:: This may be a rather lame answer, but I don't think I'd want to rank policies by relevance to administrative function. All administrative functions have to be exercised in a way that don't damage the trust, respect and standing of the encyclopedia, its normal content contributors, and the Foundation. That aside, if I had to pick one specifically for admin functions, then it'd be 321:, though I think this is cultural and is as often seen as a virtue as a vice. Nowadays I may still now and then be slightly abrasive, but only in advancing wikipedia's interests. I can wear two hats easily enough. It's certainly not something I'd hang over the exercise of admin responsibilities, where good diplomacy and perceived respect is much more vital, as encounters with 236:. It may be rather odd and unfair that there's an inverse relationship between importance and coverage, but I plan to fix that after I've finished with the other bishoprics. I'm most proud of the fact that coverage of medieval Scotland in wikipedia is now approaching satisfactory standards, though I myself am just a part of that. I've created several hundred articles ... 620:

affairs. I can add to that a deletion thread some time ago about infoboxes where the heat carried me a little. That affair actually and my encounters with Kafziel and Stemonitis made me adopt a more relaxed approach to responding on talk pages , and these days I tend to take a more relaxed approach and manner. It really does work I've found.

3087:? I am usually not this vocal at RfA's, but I think we have unreasonable expectations of prospective admins. This user has over 20,000 edits. One off-color (we ALL have written worse to those annoying trolls) comment and he is somehow not worthy of a mop (literally). Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox. :)-- 3182:

Clearly a strong contributor to article space, and passionate about the project, but I've found this user overly combattive on talk pages, even rude, negative and dismissive on occation. Some of his remarks I've seen do little to move discussion along and seem to have the purpose of ridiculing others

358:

Well, firstly, let me say I don't think it's good for some admins to be more accountable than others. All admins should be open to recall, otherwise we'll have a sort of wikipedian aristocracy. I'd be more in favour of making de-sysoping easier than an individual opt-in opt-out system. An individual

2896:

Ah ... was unfamiliar with part of the policy (actually I now vaguely recall reading it from a while ago). I think my answer was roughly in line with that anyway. I didn't say explicitly, but essentially I did say I'd never do it... though because of my experience rather than the policy. Should have

2564:- I never oppose a candidate because of a few moments in the past when he/she has got to the end of the tether and lost their head slightly. We're all humans, we're not perfect and it happens to us all. Hopefully this user learns from mistakes, because the set of contribs we have here is brilliant. 2099:

take some of his edit summaries as sniping but I personally find that description a stretch. I know that I often communicate to other editors in edit summaries. Sometimes the limited space can result in rather too brief and terse phrasing, particularly when outlining a contrary position to previous

1565:

Your urging is well taken. I was aware that I could be a little abrasive from time to time, but seeing the disapproval in 3 votes below is a bit of a shock. It's very different seeing it there than hearing it a few times a year from people on the other side of a discussion, where it can potentially

1328:

Since there's some opposition, I bothered to profile this editor for 10 minutes. I see nothing wrong with him. His credentials are far in excess of what's needed to become an administrator. He changed his answer to the question about cool-down blocks, so I think he knows what the policy is. Let's

466:

This isn't very likely to be an issue for me as I rarely edit the biographies of living persons, plus I'd regard it as a little irresponsible to insist on content controversial enough to be objected to by a reasonable user. If it happened, I can safely generalize that I'd err on the side of caution

329:

have taught me. I don't like to edit war, and unless the article is being edited with serious factual flaws, I keep in principle to 1rr and hurt my hands and wrists on talk. I do believe in the importance of community consensus and trust, although that will never stop me speaking my mind when I see

191:

requests from users requiring admin assistance or advice. I have the same opinion about editing as about admin work however: do not perform actions for which you lack the competence. This is a fundamental precept of any kind of public responsibility. Administratorship is, or perhaps rather ought to

94:

and has maintained absolute consistency in the excellence of his contributions. I've been a fairly steady contributor on the English language wikipedia since 2004 and an admin/bureaucrat upon the Gaelic wikipedia for a number of years and am well acquainted with the competences required by an admin

3568:

was mean and condescending, especially when followed with the post that Rudget points out above. This is not the way to resolve disputes, it looks more like taunting to me, which is bound to stir them up rather than calm them. Plus, the past couple talk page archives show evidence of edit warring

316:

in the discussion, and increased my own stress by continually responding to posts ... thus increasing the intensity of the discussion ... and not giving myself opportunity to chill. I also didn't appreciate the role that guideline pages have in practice for gathering people on topics of oversight,

240:

page says 747 ... which sounds about correct, probably more than half of which have been medieval Scottish articles. My article creation rate may have shrunk in the last year because these days (as said above) I focus on coverage in the individual article rather than general subject coverage. E.g.

395:

is that "ban" is a theoretical restriction on editing, whereas a block is the means of preventing a user from editing. As far as wikipedian usage goes, a "block" is an action performed by one administrator on a certain user, whereas "ban" is usually used to refer to the imposition of restrictions

253:

on my user space, I could have done likewise a few hundred stub or start articles. Like I said above, I edit based on my perception of my relative competence, rather than my interest, though the two fortunately very often coincide! I've also created a handful of wikiproject type things, including

3551:

valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but who seems quite unsuited to janitorial duties. His answers to questions 12 and 14, in particular, worry me. I'd add that the original response to Q8, even if it was fixed a posteriori, is a bad sign. Not everyone is cut out to clean up messes over

3324:

I do sincerely apologize if I got you riled. Anyone is free to read that page for themselves, but the one thing I probably should say is that the only reason I've not returned to that page in ages is because the debate is running its course. I think one should avoid enforcing one's own guideline

2219:

We're all human. We all make mistakes. We all fall from grace from time to time - Do I think you can effectively use the tools? Yes. Do I think you will abuse the tools? No. After reading through some of the comments brought up in the oppose section and doing my own checks into your contribution

2094:

I've carefully looked at the links in the various opposes (12 at the moment) and honestly can't really see the problems they are suppose to exemplify. Deacon appears to have an excellent grasp of policy as well as a long and exceptionally productive history on the project. And this is bad how? I

1485:

I like the answers to the questions, and I like the fact that he admits his mistakes. I also think it important that an admin should have article-writing experience, and am impressed by his FAs, GAs and DYKs. Regarding the objections raised in the oppose section, well we all make mistakes, these

619:

is an article I'm very unproud of, as with many of the earliest articles I did but haven't subsequently revisited. The Fergus one was done in my early days very lazily after I'd just read the Oram chapter for the first time. That's work. Actions, I refer to the above Kenneth MacAlpin and Jogaila

2034:

Considering the qualifications in the answer, I think the statement he made in his original answer about cool-down blocks comes very close to the actual use of the policy: officially, never, in practice, under exceptional circumstances. (when we do, as I see it, we generally call it a block to

2846:

Do you really think being conservative about blocking would really make me unfit for the mop? I am very experienced in those situations, and do have reasons for this philosophy; there are also plenty of others who are less conservative. And after all, I didn't say I'd go around unblocking. :)

509:

Well, everything is situationally dependent. I don't like to generalize on anything, but I'll say a few things. Blocking is a last resort. Working in a situation where two users are reverting on an article and getting rather nasty on a talk page, I'd leave a nuanced message describing what's

3421:

Regardless of other experience, the candidate does not currently have right approach for adminship if they believe that cool down blocks are a good idea, plus the incivility issues raise are a concern. Overall candidate seems more likely to create extra admin work by annoying other editors.

722:

while at least. What I will add is that while this template ({{subst:uw-3rr}}) is less provocative than this template {{3RR}} (which assumes a lot of bad faith), a polite but informative and firm personalized message is what I'd prefer to see used, esp. if you yourself intend to enforce 3RR

298:

quote: "Practically nobody reads those articles and half those that do don't understand them, and half those that understand them don't agree with them and the few who are left are the editors". I have certainly been stressed on one or two occasions in the past however. The most unpleasant

317:

and at that point in time regarded this as well-meaning but misguided "interference". The experience I learned from that has sunk in. I have sometimes revealed my Scottish distaste for beating round the bush. I've curbed this significantly as it is often interpreted as a violation of

1366:

Have had good experiences with this editor. Feel he has a good grasp of the relevant policies in the areas where I've seen him work, and understands the culture of WP. I think he'll be a good addition to the team (I already consider him a valuable member of the team, actually). -

429:. The encyclopedia can't function without that when non-admins ignore it ... much worse if admins do. It overhangs of course collective administrative decision-making about the enforcement of other policies so far as mere admins can specially or specifically enforce them. 1631:(not putting "support" down for reasons above. :) ). The Deacon has written many intelligent and worthwhile entries, well referenced, and highly informative and I also think that he will apply some common sense to some of the more stupid aspects of wikipedia too! -- 713:

a block for violation is often not carried out if there's no clear evidence that the editor knew the rule. Speaking as a non-admin just now, I'd be more comfortable with 3RR enforcement in the hands of experienced admins than new ones, so I won't be patrolling

3436:

It's not unfair to point out that I didn't review the policy before answering that Cool Down Block question, which I revised within hours, but I think it's a tad unfair to speak in the present tense as if I favoured them. I explained this, for all it's worth,

1314:: After looking through his history (20,777 edits, with 13,323 in the mainspace), several archived userpages (mild disagreements at worst), 4 featured articles, and apparent trust of the community, I would say that the admin mop has been overdue. Good luck!-- 2461:. None of the civility concerns really move me to think that this user would misuse the tools and besides that I think it is clear that he is a great contributor. Going forward, I encourage the user to review the civility issues and attempt to resolve them. 2484:

While I can see the civility concerns raised by the opponents of this RfA, I don't see anything that would indicate a propensity to misuse the tools. The tools can be taken away if the Deacon proves to be uncivil as an administrator, so granting them is

3039:- Your talk page is a little bothersome for me - hints of edit warring and issues of incivility as pointed out above. Also, your answer to question 8 raised my eyebrows slightly. Advocate of page protection for a content dispute? Cool down blocks? No. 3191:- again, no purpose of moving discussion along, but mocking other users who may hold an alterative view or look at a problem from a different angle to his own. Amongst other pages, I'm concerned about how Deacon went about putting his views forwards 2677:

To be sure, certain of the answers to the questions are at least a bit disquieting, but I am sufficiently convinced of the candidate's conversance with policy, deliberative temperament, and cordial demeanor as to conclude with some confidence that

1468:- incredibly knowledgeable editor in a number of areas and would put this to good use as a sysop. I've found him always willing to explain issues and be helpful. He does spend far too much time in WP than is good for him, but that's WP's gain. 311:

until I had my username changed a year ago. The Scottish kings thing came about by my own mistakes, moving those pages without knowledge of the substantial opposition which existed or could be brought into existence. I suffered to an extent from

3529:

The issues raised here do seem to be substantive. Whilst I think the user has learnt from their mistakes, I think the civility issues mean they are not ready for adminship just yet. More uncivil admins is not what we need right now. Regards.

2076:

There are civility concerns but overall I don't think that Deacon would either abuse the tools or misuse them. Some more familiarity with the blocking policy wouldn't hurt either but overall these issues don't seem too serious in this case.

1913:- I don't think I have ever voted in one of these Rfa thingies before (when Deacon mentioned on my Talk yesterday that he was in an "Rfa" I misread it and thought that it meant "Request for Comment" and that he had been brought before the 957: 3268:- I did initially have a good oppose for this but it was lost in a session data muddle-up, but civility concerns are a major issue so per Jza84 and Deb - (who's talk page is a good example of the behvaiour conducted by DoP, like 951: 723:

proactively. It's obviously of course a judgment thing. A user with 2 reverts on one obscure page is different than one whose contribs show little more than lots of little groups of 3 successive reverts and few talk contribs.

359:

who goes around misusing or abusing his admin powers should be de-sysoped whether or not they've opted into such a system. With those sentiments in mind, adding myself while it remains non-superfluous is a likelihood.

467:

and would not insist on my versions, or in the most extreme cases, would not do so without seeking a wider base of opinion. Presumably the other admin would have good reasons, so again it'd probably never be an issue.

1008:. I would welcome further explication whether Deacon thinks he handled the dispute well in light of Q3 above. (I'm not asking for a rehash of the merits of the dispute, just whether Deacon thinks he handled it well.) 1005: 3641:

Civility issues render me unable to place a support. However, you otherwise seem to be contributing well, and I would be happy to give my full support next time should this RFA fall through. Thanks, and good luck --

759:

It can be good to prevent the wasting of time and perhaps when it is very clear that extending someone's ordeal is the only thing someone will get from not invoking it (using projected introspection here!). However,

1990:

It is easier to say this as someone with a simillar or matching cultural perspective, than as someone with an alternative one though, of course. One "team's" straight-talk can be another's intrusion upon dignity.

700:

is there to reduce the impact of wikipedia's inevitable content disputes, not to furnish an excuse to block users. Obvious enough, but worth stating for the purposes of a spiritual overview. Nextly, the earlier

2996:. I hate to do this as your contributions here are stellar, but "you're the only person who wants this trash in the article njan" as an edit summary? Civility trumps even article building in my canon. Sorry. 242: 90:) - Deacon is a top class editor who has one of the best records you will find upon wikipedia. He is responsible for multiple Featured Articles, numerous Good and other articles not to mention countless 460:

If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included - what would you do?

23: 3098:

20,000 edits is peanuts to me - I'm not saying it isn't impressive (in this case it is since he's a great editor, very dedicated), but in the grand scheme of things I take quality over quantity.

2709: 2955:. Deacon started with, "...everything is situationally dependent...blocking is a last resort..." I don't think that the answer to Q#8 should be a deal-breaker for receiving cleaning tools. Even 1929:

to be written by, and run by, total Tefal-heads. I hope Deacon gets this, and I hope that he may even become a classic Rouge Admin in time - they are about the best type of Admin (I just read

2309:

I would like Deacon to be a bit more constantly polite, but, all considered (in particular his incredible dedication and also his quality) I strongly feel that we need more admins like him.--

782: 664: 590: 440: 407: 2035:

prevent further disruption--the difference can be just a choice of words). I think he'd do as I--almost never consider it necessary to block except for blatant & continuing problems.

246: 3346:- Tends to work in Black or White - the "Halychina" vs "Galicia" debate tends to support what he is most comfortable with rather bluntly. Admins need to promote TEAMWORK in Knowledge! 3029: 1650: 1577: 3336: 3452: 140: 2969: 2926: 2912: 2891: 2876: 2858: 875: 3379: 1116:. Tons of experience; fixed his edit summary usage. A fellow mainspace contributor. What more could I want? Nothing. In fact, my support even comes with a free subscription to 154:

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

3237: 1985: 2770: 828: 299:

experiences for me were the moves of Scottish kings and the Jogaila affair, which occurred a year and a half and two years ago respectively, of which details can be seen on

3157: 734: 631: 541: 478: 370: 2006: 2788: 2754: 2619:

Highly intelligent contributor to the project. Would be an asset rather than a detriment, and the responsibility of being an administrator will soften some rough edges.

3569:(or at least other users accusing them of it). I'd rather see this user take a few more months to more clearly demonstrate that they've fixed these civility problems. 1243: 1229: 927: 276:. 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? 3737: 2195: 56: 2743:

I hate to not provide dif's like that, but just reading the archive I linked to, there seemed too many instances. And I did not make it all the way through the page.

1969: 1958: 1370: 1256: 1151: 119: 3307: 3192: 3170: 3141: 3124: 3093: 2981: 2937: 1106: 2783: 2765: 2749: 2719: 2264: 1765: 1510: 1495: 1224: 2679: 854: 3218:

I can only swear was not meant as ridicule.I think it may just have been that I wasn't conscious of being perceived as on the other side of the dialogue there.

1306: 1295: 886: 1674:– 20,760 edits – 3.28 average edits per page, which means to me article building – 1 very minimal civility concern, from what I can see or gather, equals 308: 263: 527: 104: 3711: 2778: 2760: 2744: 2714: 2540: 2381: 1760: 1752: 1219: 2021: 1925:

a "sweet-talker". But what he is is incredibly intelligent and hard-working. He is a total brainbox, and I know it sounds snobbish, but encyclopaedias

1051: 3146:

I don't get the impression it was just one dodgy edit summary. The recent talk archive linked above has several complaints about the user's civility.

2824: 1425: 3652: 2237:

Will make a bloody good admin. Opposes are laughable. Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship.

2165: 914: 653:: All I meant was articles I created. Didn't mean to assert ownership. As Bill Reid will tell you I'm always wanting them to be expanded by others. 579:

might as well be a magical incantation. Useful to have and to remind users of when conversations get stiff or when there's too much wiki-lawyering.

3636: 2847:

Anyways, I'm not bothered about the vote, but I'd like to benefit from hearing your reasoning. You can do it on my talk page if you like. Regards,

2669: 1713: 1703: 1386: 1168: 250: 2119:, seems level-headed enough, and I'm confident that the tools will not be abused. Just don't give any cool-down blocks! Awesome username, too. 3693: 3685: 3099: 3040: 3007: 2976: 2932: 2886: 2836: 2829: 2733: 1681: 674: 338: 2347: 1560: 1274: 2536: 2156: 1770: 1588: 1403: 176: 3599: 2724: 2556: 2411: 2186: 2026: 1191: 1068: 1019: 149: 3669: 3413: 3319: 3273: 2517:

Figure he is responsible enough to take civility concerns in mind when being an admin. If not, he seems supportive of admin recall. So sure.

2301: 2177: 2101: 1882: 1855: 1743: 1640: 1460: 1441: 1330: 1286: 643:

Your user page uses the phrase "My articles" for several entries. Are you comfortable with that wording and how do you think it fits in with

3431: 3395: 2815: 2437: 2123: 2068: 1942: 1823: 1716: 995: 921: 3698: 3325:

proposal when there's clear opposition, even if it's only small, though I see there is still broad support for the suggestion I made there.

2686: 2575: 2476: 2453: 2364: 2283: 2211: 1905: 1694: 1623: 1531: 1476: 1320: 1085: 871: 3722: 3065: 2841: 2738: 2628: 2611: 2544: 2527: 2512: 2330: 2086: 1841: 1787: 1603: 1213: 1131: 3582: 3471: 3355: 3298: 2594: 2111: 1803: 1548: 1358: 1342: 3521: 3497: 3281: 2428: 2318: 2292:

But I support anyway; I usually agree with Deb, and disagree with Deacon, on the substantive issues; but I don't regard him as uncivil.

2229: 3755: 3556: 3539: 3210: 2246: 974: 907: 87: 2897:

double-checked before I answered! Also, let me add that I wasn't really thinking of "cool-down block" in the rigid terms described by

2645: 2046: 1666: 3260: 765: 237: 1981: 1382: 2445:

while occasionally blunt, he's focused on the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and I do not believe he would missue the tools.

2182:

Good content editor, so he doesn't always haud his wheesht, all the better. Cool down blocks do occasionally have their place.--

255: 3368:, a guideline I'm not always a big fan of. I also thought you had been satisfied with the responses of myself and User:Irpen. 286:: I don't get stressed too much these days, as I've given myself the opportunity to learn the relevant lessons. Violations of 3552:

constructing an encyclopedia, and I don't think not having the bit removes any of the shine from Deacon's contributions. —

2917:

Do you think that revising a response in line with new information would be a desirable or undesirable quality in an admin?

294:

annoy me the most, but I've learned that these are inevitable in certain areas, so I console myself with a paraphrase of a

1849:

More article building admins are always welcome. Employing AGF, I don't really see enough in the opposes not to support.

2100:

editors. Deacon appears willing and able to engage in discussion, often in contentious areas. I see only positives here.

945: 3403:

Cool-down block is the tipping point, clearly indicating that the individual did not read throughly in blocking policy.

1282:- The user definitely has the experience and would make a great admin, or at least it is extremely likely that he will. 2144: 3438: 2404: 1734: 1300: 575:

all you like, but wikipedia works on consensus and the individuals and culture behind it. You work against that then

3135:

that he has 20k edits, but that one off-color comment in 20,000 shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Know what I mean? :)--

2377: 2175: 1455: 259: 40: 17: 2433:

Seems like a good user, but I kindly suggest you do pay attention to the concerns listed in the oppose section.

770:

somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause.

3447: 3374: 3331: 3232: 3219: 3188: 3118: 3059: 3024: 2907: 2853: 2206: 2150: 1901: 1572: 1043: 901: 823: 777: 761: 729: 659: 626: 585: 536: 516: 473: 435: 402: 365: 135: 81: 3565: 2732:

Maybe I am not looking hard enough, but would you mind telling me what section/incident you are referring to?

1795:

per answers to questions. Even the one he got wrong, which wasn't terribly wrong, and he corrected it anyway.

1408:

AGF, has learned lesson on cool down blocks and will never issue one. 4FAs move me from neutral (strongly...)

939: 3650: 1593: 1416: 3607:

Unfortunately, I believe there are too many little problems here, the recent civility issues in particular.

1975: 1376: 981: 3511: 3278: 2581: 1725: 1338: 813:

Though it's not policy, lots of those essay pages contain some very well thought out advice. I'd also cite

55: 3015: 3624: 3269: 3215: 3184: 2373: 3736:

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

2664: 2659: 2580:

Yes, there are some problematic points, but nobody's perfect and Deacon certainly doesn't look like an

1164: 1649:, he conducted himself very well under the circumstances despite being baited; and I support despite 3490: 3442: 3369: 3326: 3289:- too many concerns raised by others. I don't feel this user is ready yet. Come back soon, please. 3247:- if you want an idea why, you only have to look at some of his recent comments on my talk page, eg. 3227: 3152: 3019: 3002: 2902: 2848: 1778:- I've noticed the positive contributions of this user before. Should have been an admin long ago. -- 1645:

He is quite clearly a great content editor. There are very slight civility concerns but I think here

1567: 1036: 897: 867: 818: 772: 724: 654: 621: 580: 571:

could be a torrential mixture. Seen loads of interpretations of it. All I'd say is that you can cite

531: 511: 468: 430: 397: 360: 172: 130: 77: 2975:

Alright, a user should not be judged on one question or incident. I will change to neutral for now.

690:, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third? 3644: 1410: 933: 2952: 2343: 1271: 3608: 3595: 2253:

Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship."

2138: 1399: 860: 3248: 3665: 3409: 3361: 3315: 2759:

My apologies. Struck oppose. Only able to find three instances after all that weren't so bad.

2654: 2653:. A serious cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary editor. Practice makes perfect. Let it be. 2397: 1185: 1160: 1064: 814: 300: 3675: 3389:- "As mellow as the come". Really? I don't think so looking at the uncivility on Deb's page. 1025: 3427: 3147: 2997: 2810: 2602:

I hope this can help to stop the campaign of forking articles on Eastern-European topics.--

2297: 2260: 2170: 1877: 1850: 1636: 1450: 1437: 1146: 850: 100: 2692: 8: 3223: 2058: 1938: 1708: 1329:

give him a chance to make mistakes, and if he makes mistakes, we'll worry about it then.

426: 2355:

Per all of the above. Everything seems fine to me, don't see any real reason to oppose.

3168: 3139: 3108: 3091: 3049: 2967: 2922: 2872: 2571: 2469: 2450: 2360: 2339: 2279: 1956: 1895: 1687: 1621: 1557: 1473: 1318: 1268: 1178:. The green color is just to mix things up a bit! =) Good editor, deserves the mop. 1102: 1081: 1015: 970: 616: 295: 233: 229: 221: 2164:

Good candidate probably will not abuse the tools but the old answer to Q#8 worries me

3591: 3576: 3467: 3351: 3294: 2705:"cool down blocks" are never appropriate. They tend to heat up rather than cool down. 2624: 2607: 2523: 2508: 2132: 2082: 1783: 1598: 1395: 1239: 1209: 1127: 804: 213: 115: 3187:). An example of talking about contributors rather than contributions is also found 1646: 1486:

don't seem particularly significant to me, and I'm confident he'll learn from them.

1091:

Hmm, somewhat disappointing answer to #8, which could be improved upon by reviewing

3661: 3516: 3404: 3311: 2956: 2798: 2712:

comments from other users show candidate to be quick to wrath and ready to revert.

2553: 2390: 2183: 2106: 1930: 1801: 1544: 1506: 1491: 1334: 1181: 1060: 1001: 993: 715: 710: 3535: 3423: 3390: 3205: 2803: 2424: 2314: 2293: 2256: 2225: 2001: 1868: 1632: 1447: 1433: 1283: 1253: 1139: 846: 326: 217: 96: 71: 3084: 2960: 2490: 2489:. I would, however, like the candidate to affirm both a renewed commitment to 2486: 2434: 2242: 2120: 2054: 1934: 1813: 1118: 750: 568: 489: 287: 225: 180: 3226:

for a very perceptive comment he made. Again, I regret this impression of me.

2931:

I would say leave the original response, and place the new response under it.

3749: 3730:

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

3484: 3256: 3165: 3136: 3088: 3018:, I have in the past been impatient with verifiably false content additions. 2964: 2918: 2898: 2882: 2868: 2864: 2683: 2641: 2566: 2494: 2464: 2446: 2357: 2275: 2198: 2042: 1953: 1891: 1662: 1616: 1527: 1522: 1469: 1315: 1098: 1092: 1077: 1011: 706: 697: 687: 644: 576: 572: 564: 554: 523: 450: 419:

What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

392: 349: 318: 313: 291: 91: 1218:

Sometimes we write "oppose", but it's too confusing and we are only joking.

3716: 3570: 3463: 3365: 3347: 3290: 2620: 2603: 2519: 2504: 2327: 2194:. I don't forsee any abuse here. All questions bar 8 answered well enough. 2078: 1834: 1779: 1235: 1205: 1123: 322: 304: 184: 111: 3506: 3494: 3222:

was indeed a partial comment on a contributor, but I was merely praising

2963:. It's apparent from his prior history that he would not abuse the mop.-- 2585: 1952:: one of the best RfA entries I have ever seen (the edit summary, too)!-- 1796: 1540: 1502: 1487: 1351: 988: 705:

intervention can occur, the better. If you suspect the user doesn't know

95:

and dont doubt that Deacon is in posession of the necessary attributes.

3505:

The issues raised here in regards to Q#8 just bother me a bit... sorry.

2680:

the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive

2338:

a stellar candidate who managed to keep neutrality in hot edit warrings

1914: 3553: 3531: 3199: 2420: 2310: 2221: 1995: 793: 600: 1933:

a few days ago - made me laugh). Lord preserve us from the thickies!--

3740:

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

2238: 1000:

I see some potential for civility problems based on the dispute with

177:

Knowledge:Deletion_today#List_of_candidates_.28updates_frequently.29

3480: 3308:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Scotland guidelines

3252: 2637: 2636:

truly dedicated editor! We definitely need more such contributors.

2037: 1658: 973:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 396:

and/or a block by the consensus of the wider wikipedian community.

1746: 1737: 1728: 610:

What work or actions on Knowledge are you least proud of and why?

2552:. As prolific, sensible and helpful an editor as there can be. -- 2291:

Is this why Deacon is being comparatively nice this week? :-: -->

1501:

Striking my support, as Deb's comments have made me think again.

1059:. Great encyclopedia builder and a good member of the community. 64: 2372:

has been around since Feb 2005 with over 13000 mainspace edits.

2220:

history and talk pages, I feel you will be fine as an admin. --

1890:

for me, the amount of 'pedia building outweighs the civility.

1867:

content contributor, will be a strong asset to our project. --

1918: 1159:

Support without reservation. A great encyclopedia builder. --

127:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

3493:) and other evidence of conflicts on Deacon's talk page. -- 1811:

great nomination. Strong editor with a proven track record.

2535:. Great contributor, mature enough to learn from mistakes. 845:

Would you be subject to recall, and under what conditions?

768:

are also important to bear in mind. As the latter says, if

67: 1653:

some pro-soccer bias perhaps ;). No, seriously, I give my

24:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

1724:

Perfect edit summary usage, and a nice editor overall. -

202:. What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why? 36:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3306:- have had a very negative experience with this user at 1137:

Deserves and has earned it, and for the right reasons.

3364:. In that instance I perceived clear enforcement of 3079:

hate to keep blasting this annoying trumpet, but is

2802: 2151: 2145: 2139: 2133: 1138: 3660:per civility concerns and removing cited material. 264:

Knowledge:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

175:, I would patrol that for lagging closures, patrol 1589: 766:WP:Snowball clause#What the snowball clause is not 385:What is the difference between a block and a ban? 3183:attempts at engaging with the community (such as 1599: 1594: 1248:Believe it or not, I never realized that putting 1006:Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain 391:: The simple technical distinction as defined on 3747: 987:My questions, they are being stolen, verbatim! 352:? Will you add yourself to it, why or why not? 3590:- not quite ready, too many lingering issues. 3360:The only thing I think you may thinking of is 161:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 1097:revising the answer was spot on, nice touch. 2901:. Shall I make my answer clearer? Regards, 1587:Excellent editor would make a fine admin -- 1196:Great editor. PS- why are you guys writing 887:Requests for adminship/Deacon of Pndapetzim 2885:, that will explain my reasoning. Cheers, 975:Special:Contributions/Deacon of Pndapetzim 3684:Changed to neutral from my oppose above. 187:, as well as making myself available for 3692:Changed back to oppose (see my oppose). 1831:Shows good judgement. Proven experience. 969:Please keep discussion constructive and 502:When should "cool down blocks" be used? 3547:; we have here what I beleive to be an 256:Knowledge:WikiProject Medieval Scotland 14: 3748: 2863:As mentioned above, perhaps reviewing 2710:User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive VIII 2274:Will make good use of the admin tools 1299: 1076:. Looks like an excellent candidate. 837:Optional question from Septentionalis 1967: 1368: 3710:Gut feeling. Shows experience, but 30: 31: 3767: 3756:Successful requests for adminship 2951:, Q#8 was a loaded question (per 522:In the formal terms described by 241:for what has been done so far on 63:Ended at (73/23/1); ended 20:10, 895:Links for Deacon of Pndapetzim: 563:It's a difficult one, isn't it? 260:Knowledge:WikiProject Washington 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3627: 3609: 3111: 3101: 3052: 3042: 2804: 2389:- sound answers to questions! — 1814: 1200:in your votes? We're under the 1140: 520:) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 228:, and even more substantial in 3164:Can anyone show some diff's?-- 2811: 2497:. That would turn my support 1267:Well, I would do, wouldn't I? 1147: 874:. For the edit count, see the 762:Knowledge:Process is important 13: 1: 3723:15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3699:04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3690:03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3479:per discussions mentioned by 3414:16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 3396:00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 3380:17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3356:03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3337:17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3320:03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3299:02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3282:20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3261:19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3238:17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 3211:15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3171:05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3158:05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3142:04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3125:04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3094:04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3085:tools to clean others' messes 3066:04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3030:04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 3008:03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2982:03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2970:03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2959:said that being an admin was 2938:04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2927:03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2913:03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2892:03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2877:03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2859:03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2842:00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2834:03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2816:01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2789:21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2771:02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2755:01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2739:01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2725:01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2069:15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 2047:09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 2027:05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 1959:05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 1943:05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 1906:22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1883:22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1856:20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1842:18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1824:16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1804:00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1788:22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1771:21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1753:20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1717:20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1695:19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1667:16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1641:16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1624:16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1604:15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1578:15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1561:14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1549:13:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1532:12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1511:21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1496:11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1477:09:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1461:08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1442:08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1426:07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1404:06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1394:Seems like a good candidate. 1387:06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1359:06:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1343:05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1321:03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1307:03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1287:02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1275:01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1257:02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1244:01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1230:01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1214:01:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1192:01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1169:01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1152:01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1132:01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1107:03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1086:00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1069:00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1052:00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 996:00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 792:More optional questions from 673:More optional questions from 665:16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 632:16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 591:02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 542:04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 479:01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 441:02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 408:01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 371:01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 141:00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 120:23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 105:19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2024: 1978: 1861:Goodness Gracious Me Support 1379: 1352: 1350:Trust not to abuse tools. - 1302:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 490: 7: 2498: 2107: 870:'s edit summary usage with 150:Questions for the candidate 10: 3772: 3714:makes an excellent point. 2419:Good content contributor. 1400:(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 1252:was completely pointless. 348:What are your thoughts on 110:I second that nomination. 3670:19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 3653:11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 3637:07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 3600:03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 3583:02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 3557:00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 3540:23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3522:09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3498:06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3472:01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3453:07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 3432:00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2687:20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2670:19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2646:19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2629:17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2612:15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2595:15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2576:14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2557:06:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2545:06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2528:05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2513:04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2477:03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 2454:22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2438:21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2429:19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2412:17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2382:06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2365:05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2348:04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2331:04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2319:00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2302:22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2284:21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2265:10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 2247:20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2230:20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2212:01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2187:00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2178:20:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2157:19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2124:06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2112:02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2087:02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 2020:. Seems trustworthy. -- 2007:00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 1986:01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1020:18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 855:21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 829:01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 815:Knowledge:Don't be a dick 783:01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 735:01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 173:Knowledge:Requested moves 3733:Please do not modify it. 3629: 3083:worthy of not receiving 2867:would be of assistance. 2809: 2702:Oh, boy. Back to Oppose. 1647:Talk:Kiev#Requested_move 1145: 803:What is your opinion on 749:What is your opinion on 686:What is your opinion on 553:What is your opinion on 337:Optional Questions from 129:I accept with pleasure. 3462:per civility concerns. 1931:Doc Glasgow's User page 449:Optional Question from 45:Please do not modify it 2801:pointed out, sorry... 2374:Pharaoh of the Wizards 2255:- Well said that man. 1539:- trustworthy editor. 307:page. Note that I was 3362:Talk:Galicia-Volhynia 1034:Excellent candidate. 301:Talk:Kenneth MacAlpin 41:request for adminship 3443:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3370:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3327:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3228:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3020:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2903:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2849:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2326:per the user above. 1611:per answer to 7 and 1568:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1520:No problems here. -- 1298:edit. Sincerely, -- 1038:One Night In Hackney 898:Deacon of Pndapetzim 868:Deacon of Pndapetzim 819:Deacon of Pndapetzim 773:Deacon of Pndapetzim 725:Deacon of Pndapetzim 655:Deacon of Pndapetzim 622:Deacon of Pndapetzim 581:Deacon of Pndapetzim 532:Deacon of Pndapetzim 512:Deacon of Pndapetzim 469:Deacon of Pndapetzim 431:Deacon of Pndapetzim 398:Deacon of Pndapetzim 361:Deacon of Pndapetzim 232:and (most recently) 131:Deacon of Pndapetzim 78:Deacon of Pndapetzim 57:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3646:Anonymous Dissident 3224:User:Breadandcheese 1964:And another Comment 1411:dihydrogen monoxide 882:RfAs for this user: 427:Knowledge:Consensus 3721: 3649: 2524:wasn't he just...? 2495:openness to recall 1799: 991: 977:before commenting. 617:Fergus of Galloway 296:Yes Prime Minister 46: 3715: 3712:User:Dlohcierekim 3643: 3581: 3450: 3377: 3334: 3235: 3156: 3120: 3115: 3061: 3056: 3027: 3006: 2910: 2881:(ec) Please read 2856: 2475: 2409: 2402: 2395: 2300: 2210: 2202: 2162:Very Weak Support 2065: 1797: 1693: 1575: 1446:Support per nom. 1424: 1402: 989: 853: 826: 780: 753:RFA's and AFD's? 732: 662: 629: 588: 539: 519: 476: 438: 405: 368: 138: 44: 22:(Redirected from 3763: 3735: 3719: 3696: 3688: 3647: 3634: 3632: 3631: 3622: 3579: 3575: 3573: 3519: 3514: 3509: 3446: 3439:here to Sallicio 3373: 3330: 3276: 3231: 3209: 3150: 3131:My point wasn't 3119: 3113: 3109: 3103: 3060: 3054: 3050: 3044: 3023: 3000: 2979: 2935: 2906: 2889: 2852: 2839: 2832: 2814: 2812: 2808: 2806: 2799:User:OhanaUnited 2797:Don't like what 2786: 2781: 2768: 2763: 2752: 2747: 2736: 2722: 2717: 2667: 2662: 2657: 2591: 2574: 2569: 2502: 2482:Lukewarm Support 2474: 2472: 2462: 2405: 2398: 2391: 2363: 2296: 2204: 2201: 2153: 2147: 2141: 2135: 2109: 2063: 2025: 2005: 1984: 1980: 1972: 1971:Kathryn NicDhàna 1880: 1875: 1837: 1820: 1768: 1763: 1748: 1739: 1730: 1711: 1706: 1692: 1690: 1679: 1619: 1601: 1596: 1591: 1571: 1530: 1525: 1458: 1454: 1414: 1398: 1385: 1381: 1373: 1372:Kathryn NicDhàna 1356: 1305: 1303: 1234:It's tradition. 1227: 1222: 1190: 1176: 1161:Malleus Fatuorum 1150: 1148: 1144: 1142: 1050: 1046: 1039: 1018: 1002:User:Benkenobi18 961: 920: 861:General comments 849: 822: 776: 728: 677: 658: 625: 584: 535: 515: 494: 492: 472: 434: 401: 364: 134: 27: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3738:this nomination 3731: 3717: 3694: 3686: 3678: 3645: 3633: 3625: 3577: 3571: 3517: 3512: 3507: 3274: 3196: 3148:Espresso Addict 3123: 3114: 3064: 3055: 2998:Espresso Addict 2977: 2933: 2887: 2837: 2830: 2784: 2779: 2766: 2761: 2750: 2745: 2734: 2720: 2715: 2695: 2665: 2660: 2655: 2587: 2567: 2565: 2470: 2463: 2356: 2294:Septentrionalis 2209: 2155: 2062: 1992: 1970: 1917:to receive the 1878: 1869: 1840: 1835: 1780:Amir E. Aharoni 1766: 1761: 1709: 1704: 1688: 1680: 1617: 1523: 1521: 1456: 1452: 1420: 1371: 1301: 1225: 1220: 1179: 1174: 1049: 1044: 1037: 1035: 1028: 1009: 984: 913: 896: 892: 863: 847:Septentrionalis 675: 599:Questions from 488: 487:Questions from 327:User:Stemonitis 152: 60: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3769: 3759: 3758: 3743: 3742: 3726: 3725: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3677: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3655: 3639: 3626: 3602: 3585: 3559: 3542: 3524: 3500: 3474: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3416: 3398: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3301: 3284: 3272:for example). 3263: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3180:Strong oppose: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3110: 3106: 3051: 3047: 3034: 3033: 3032: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2879: 2823:- Per Q#8 and 2821:Back to Oppose 2818: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2777:to s Per water 2775: 2774: 2773: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2694: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2672: 2648: 2631: 2614: 2597: 2582:angry mastodon 2578: 2559: 2547: 2530: 2515: 2479: 2456: 2440: 2431: 2414: 2384: 2367: 2350: 2336:Strong Support 2333: 2321: 2304: 2286: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2232: 2214: 2205: 2199:Ferdia O'Brien 2189: 2180: 2159: 2137: 2127: 2114: 2092:Strong Support 2089: 2071: 2059: 2049: 2029: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1961: 1908: 1885: 1858: 1844: 1832: 1826: 1806: 1790: 1773: 1755: 1719: 1697: 1678:. Good Luck. 1676:strong support 1669: 1655:strong support 1643: 1626: 1615:answer to 8. — 1606: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1551: 1534: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1499: 1463: 1444: 1428: 1418: 1406: 1389: 1361: 1345: 1323: 1309: 1289: 1277: 1269:Angus McLellan 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1194: 1171: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1071: 1054: 1041: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 998: 983: 980: 966: 965: 964: 962: 891: 890: 889: 881: 880: 879: 872:mathbot's tool 862: 859: 858: 857: 840: 838: 834: 833: 832: 831: 790: 788: 787: 786: 785: 742: 740: 739: 738: 737: 670: 669: 668: 667: 637: 636: 635: 634: 596: 595: 594: 593: 567:combined with 547: 546: 545: 544: 484: 483: 482: 481: 446: 445: 444: 443: 413: 412: 411: 410: 378: 376: 375: 374: 373: 334: 333: 332: 331: 278: 277: 270: 269: 268: 267: 204: 203: 196: 195: 194: 193: 163: 162: 151: 148: 146: 144: 143: 123: 122: 59: 54: 52: 50: 49: 32: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3768: 3757: 3754: 3753: 3751: 3741: 3739: 3734: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3713: 3709: 3706: 3705: 3700: 3697: 3691: 3689: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3656: 3654: 3651: 3648: 3640: 3638: 3635: 3623: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3606: 3603: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3580: 3574: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3558: 3555: 3550: 3546: 3543: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3528: 3525: 3523: 3520: 3515: 3510: 3504: 3501: 3499: 3496: 3492: 3489: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3420: 3417: 3415: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3407: 3402: 3399: 3397: 3394: 3393: 3388: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3333: 3328: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3285: 3283: 3280: 3277: 3271: 3267: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3234: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3207: 3203: 3201: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3181: 3178: 3172: 3169: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3154: 3149: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3140: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3105: 3104: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3092: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3062: 3057: 3046: 3045: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3026: 3021: 3017: 3014: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3004: 2999: 2995: 2992: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2968: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2939: 2936: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2909: 2904: 2900: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2890: 2884: 2880: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2855: 2850: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2835: 2833: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2813: 2807: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2790: 2787: 2782: 2776: 2772: 2769: 2764: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2753: 2748: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2737: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2718: 2713: 2711: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2676: 2673: 2671: 2668: 2663: 2658: 2652: 2649: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2590: 2583: 2579: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2555: 2551: 2548: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2514: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2441: 2439: 2436: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2408: 2403: 2401: 2396: 2394: 2388: 2385: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2368: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2354: 2351: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340:Alex Bakharev 2337: 2334: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2305: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2233: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2218: 2215: 2213: 2208: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2181: 2179: 2176: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2154: 2148: 2142: 2136: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2118: 2115: 2113: 2110: 2105: 2104: 2098: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2033: 2030: 2028: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1997: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1884: 1881: 1876: 1873: 1866: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1848: 1845: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1830: 1827: 1825: 1822: 1821: 1819: 1818: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1772: 1769: 1764: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1723: 1720: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1707: 1701: 1698: 1696: 1691: 1685: 1684: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1625: 1622: 1620: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1605: 1602: 1597: 1592: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1569: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1558:Mike Christie 1555: 1552: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1529: 1526: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1459: 1451: 1449: 1445: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1427: 1422: 1413: 1412: 1407: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1365: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1324: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1304: 1297: 1293: 1290: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1258: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1223: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1193: 1189: 1187: 1183: 1177: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1143: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1053: 1048: 1047: 1040: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1021: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1007: 1003: 999: 997: 994: 992: 986: 985: 979: 978: 976: 972: 963: 959: 956: 953: 950: 947: 944: 941: 938: 935: 932: 929: 926: 923: 919: 916: 912: 909: 906: 903: 899: 894: 893: 888: 885: 884: 883: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864: 856: 852: 848: 844: 841: 839: 836: 835: 830: 825: 820: 816: 812: 809: 808: 806: 802: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 784: 779: 774: 771: 767: 763: 758: 755: 754: 752: 748: 745: 744: 743: 736: 731: 726: 721: 717: 712: 708: 704: 699: 695: 692: 691: 689: 685: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 666: 661: 656: 652: 649: 648: 646: 642: 639: 638: 633: 628: 623: 618: 615: 612: 611: 609: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 592: 587: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 559: 558: 556: 552: 549: 548: 543: 538: 533: 529: 526:, never. See 525: 521: 518: 513: 507: 504: 503: 501: 498: 497: 496: 495: 493: 480: 475: 470: 465: 462: 461: 459: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451:User:TravisTX 442: 437: 432: 428: 424: 421: 420: 418: 415: 414: 409: 404: 399: 394: 390: 387: 386: 384: 381: 380: 379: 372: 367: 362: 357: 354: 353: 351: 347: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339:User:Tiptoety 328: 324: 320: 315: 310: 309:User:Calgacus 306: 302: 297: 293: 289: 285: 282: 281: 280: 279: 275: 272: 271: 265: 261: 257: 252: 248: 244: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 208: 207: 206: 205: 201: 198: 197: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 167: 166: 165: 164: 160: 157: 156: 155: 147: 142: 137: 132: 128: 125: 124: 121: 117: 113: 109: 108: 107: 106: 102: 98: 93: 89: 86: 83: 79: 75: 74: 73: 69: 66: 58: 53: 48: 42: 39: 34: 33: 25: 19: 3732: 3729: 3707: 3683: 3657: 3628:Call me MoP! 3618: 3614: 3610: 3604: 3592:Sumoeagle179 3587: 3564:- I thought 3561: 3548: 3544: 3526: 3502: 3487: 3476: 3459: 3418: 3410: 3405: 3400: 3391: 3386: 3343: 3314: 3303: 3286: 3265: 3244: 3198: 3179: 3132: 3100: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3041: 3036: 3012: 2993: 2974: 2948: 2827: 2820: 2707: 2704: 2701: 2700: 2674: 2650: 2633: 2616: 2599: 2588: 2561: 2549: 2532: 2518: 2507: 2499: 2481: 2465: 2458: 2442: 2416: 2406: 2399: 2392: 2386: 2369: 2352: 2335: 2323: 2306: 2288: 2271: 2252: 2234: 2216: 2191: 2171: 2166: 2161: 2134:Cold Phoenix 2129: 2116: 2102: 2096: 2091: 2073: 2057: 2051: 2036: 2031: 2017: 1994: 1968: 1963: 1949: 1926: 1922: 1910: 1898: 1887: 1871: 1864: 1860: 1851: 1846: 1833: 1828: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1792: 1775: 1757: 1745: 1744: 1736: 1735: 1727: 1726: 1721: 1699: 1682: 1675: 1671: 1654: 1628: 1612: 1608: 1584: 1553: 1536: 1517: 1482: 1481: 1465: 1430: 1409: 1396:RyanGerbil10 1391: 1369: 1363: 1353: 1347: 1325: 1311: 1291: 1279: 1249: 1201: 1197: 1180: 1173: 1136: 1119:The Signpost 1117: 1113: 1090: 1073: 1056: 1042: 1031: 1010: 968: 967: 954: 948: 942: 936: 930: 924: 917: 910: 904: 842: 810: 800: 791: 789: 769: 756: 746: 741: 719: 718:, not for a 702: 693: 683: 672: 671: 650: 640: 613: 607: 598: 597: 560: 550: 508: 505: 499: 486: 485: 463: 457: 448: 447: 422: 416: 388: 382: 377: 355: 345: 336: 335: 323:User:Kafziel 305:Talk:Jogaila 283: 273: 251:this article 247:this article 243:this article 209: 199: 188: 168: 158: 153: 145: 126: 84: 76: 62: 61: 51: 37: 35: 3662:El.Bastardo 3406:OhanaUnited 3312:Warofdreams 3016:fair enough 2961:no big deal 2487:no big deal 2393:TreasuryTag 2022:Iterator12n 1702:per above. 1182:Malinaccier 1061:Majoreditor 3424:TigerShark 3392:Netkinetic 2298:PMAnderson 2095:guess one 1852:Black Kite 1633:MacRusgail 1595:(Contribs) 1448:Ben MacDui 1284:Parent5446 1254:Parent5446 982:Discussion 851:PMAnderson 805:WP:NOSPADE 303:, and the 72:Kingturtle 38:successful 3549:extremely 2828:Per Q#8. 2805:~ Dreamy 2785:cierekim 2767:cierekim 2751:cierekim 2721:cierekim 2435:Acalamari 2121:Lankiveil 2061:<: --> 2055:Ruhrfisch 1935:Mais oui! 1817:Gtstricky 1767:cierekim 1758:per water 1714:NHRHS2010 1470:Bill Reid 1226:cierekim 1204:section. 1141:~ Dreamy 940:block log 876:talk page 716:WP:AN/3RR 711:WP:AN/3RR 491:Chetblong 330:problems. 249:and this 238:this page 70:(UTC) by 3750:Category 3695:Tiptoety 3687:Tiptoety 3491:contribs 3166:Sallicio 3137:Sallicio 3102:Wisdom89 3089:Sallicio 3043:Wisdom89 2978:Tiptoety 2965:Sallicio 2934:Tiptoety 2919:Ronnotel 2888:Tiptoety 2869:Ronnotel 2838:Tiptoety 2831:Tiptoety 2735:Tiptoety 2491:niceness 2466:SorryGuy 2447:Ealdgyth 2407:contribs 2353:Support. 2276:Dreamspy 1954:Sallicio 1902:contribs 1892:Casliber 1865:prolific 1738:Favorite 1683:Shoessss 1392:Support. 1316:Sallicio 1099:Ronnotel 1078:Ronnotel 1012:Argyriou 908:contribs 676:Tiptoety 262:and the 234:Dunblane 230:Galloway 222:Aberdeen 88:contribs 3718:Spencer 3708:Neutral 3676:Neutral 3572:delldot 3464:Epbr123 3348:Bobanni 3291:Bearian 3073:Comment 3013:Comment 2949:Comment 2708:Oppose 2675:Support 2651:Support 2634:Support 2621:Dr. Dan 2617:Support 2604:Dojarca 2600:Support 2562:Support 2550:Support 2537:MrPrada 2533:Support 2520:seresin 2500:red hot 2493:and an 2459:Support 2443:Support 2417:Support 2387:Support 2370:Support 2324:Support 2307:Support 2289:Support 2272:Support 2257:siarach 2235:Support 2217:Support 2192:Support 2130:Support 2117:Support 2079:JoshuaZ 2074:support 2052:Support 2032:Support 2018:Support 1950:Comment 1911:Support 1888:Support 1847:Support 1836:Ευπάτωρ 1829:Support 1809:Support 1793:Support 1776:Support 1722:Support 1700:Support 1672:Support 1613:revised 1609:Support 1590:Barryob 1585:Support 1554:Support 1537:Support 1528:iva1979 1518:Support 1483:Support 1466:Support 1434:siarach 1431:Support 1364:Support 1348:Support 1326:Support 1312:SUPPORT 1292:Support 1280:Support 1250:Support 1236:Useight 1206:GoodDay 1202:support 1198:support 1175:Support 1124:Useight 1114:Support 1074:Support 1057:Support 1032:Support 1026:Support 915:deleted 751:snowing 569:WP:BOLD 288:WP:NPOV 214:Dunkeld 181:WP:AN/I 112:GoodDay 97:siarach 65:4 March 3658:Oppose 3621:uppets 3613:aster 3605:Oppose 3588:Oppose 3562:Oppose 3545:Oppose 3527:Oppose 3503:Oppose 3495:Elkman 3477:Oppose 3460:Oppose 3419:Oppose 3401:Oppose 3387:Oppose 3344:Oppose 3304:Oppose 3287:Oppose 3275:Rudget 3266:Oppose 3245:Oppose 3077:really 3037:Oppose 2994:Oppose 2899:WP:CDB 2883:WP:CDB 2865:WP:CDB 2693:Oppose 2661:shelok 2554:Ghirla 2103:Pigman 1915:Rector 1870:Cactus 1798:Avruch 1747:Cookie 1729:Milk's 1618:Travis 1600:(Talk) 1541:Addhoc 1503:NSH001 1488:NSH001 1354:Shudde 1331:Shalom 1272:(Talk) 1093:WP:CDB 1016:(talk) 990:Avruch 707:WP:3RR 703:useful 698:WP:3RR 688:WP:3RR 645:WP:OWN 577:WP:IAR 573:WP:IAR 565:WP:IAR 555:WP:IAR 524:WP:CDB 393:WP:BAN 350:WP:AOR 319:WP:AGF 314:WP:OWN 292:WP:SYN 224:, and 189:ad hoc 3554:Coren 3532:Woody 3366:WP:UE 3200:Jza84 2957:Jimbo 2666:honov 2656:Steve 2572:drama 2503:. -- 2471:Talk 2421:RMHED 2328:Ostap 2311:Aldux 2222:Ozgod 2172:fusco 2097:might 2060:: --> 1996:Jza84 1927:ought 1919:tawse 1705:NHRHS 1689:Chat 1629:Ditto 1339:Peace 1335:Hello 1004:over 971:civil 922:count 794:Jza84 601:Jza84 218:Moray 185:WP:AN 16:< 3666:talk 3596:talk 3578:talk 3566:this 3536:talk 3508:Jmlk 3485:talk 3468:talk 3448:Talk 3428:talk 3375:Talk 3352:talk 3332:Talk 3316:talk 3295:talk 3270:this 3257:talk 3249:this 3233:Talk 3220:This 3216:This 3206:talk 3193:here 3189:here 3185:here 3153:talk 3133:just 3081:that 3075:: I 3025:Talk 3003:talk 2953:this 2923:talk 2908:Talk 2873:talk 2854:Talk 2780:Dloh 2762:Dloh 2746:Dloh 2716:Dloh 2642:talk 2638:M.K. 2625:talk 2608:talk 2541:talk 2509:ohio 2451:Talk 2425:talk 2400:talk 2378:talk 2361:khoi 2358:Khoi 2344:talk 2315:talk 2280:talk 2261:talk 2243:talk 2239:Nick 2226:talk 2167:Alex 2083:talk 2043:talk 2002:talk 1939:talk 1896:talk 1863:- A 1784:talk 1762:Dloh 1710:2010 1663:talk 1651:here 1637:talk 1573:Talk 1545:talk 1507:talk 1492:talk 1474:Talk 1457:Walk 1438:talk 1296:this 1294:per 1240:talk 1221:Dloh 1210:talk 1186:talk 1165:talk 1128:talk 1103:talk 1082:talk 1065:talk 952:rfar 934:logs 902:talk 866:See 824:Talk 778:Talk 764:and 730:Talk 660:Talk 627:Talk 586:Talk 537:Talk 528:here 517:Talk 474:Talk 436:Talk 403:Talk 366:Talk 325:and 290:and 226:Ross 183:and 136:Talk 116:talk 101:talk 92:DYKs 82:talk 68:2008 3481:Deb 3253:Deb 3197:-- 2684:Joe 2682:. 2586:Max 2568:Lra 2505:SSB 2207:(C) 2184:Doc 2038:DGG 1993:-- 1923:not 1874:man 1659:EJF 1045:303 958:spi 928:AfD 801:14. 747:13. 720:big 684:12. 608:10. 3752:: 3668:) 3617:f 3598:) 3538:) 3470:) 3451:) 3430:) 3378:) 3354:) 3335:) 3297:) 3259:) 3236:) 3117:/ 3058:/ 3028:) 2925:) 2911:) 2875:) 2857:) 2826:- 2644:) 2627:) 2610:) 2592:em 2584:. 2543:) 2522:| 2449:| 2427:) 2380:) 2346:) 2317:) 2282:) 2263:) 2245:) 2228:) 2085:) 2045:) 1941:) 1904:) 1786:) 1686:| 1665:) 1657:. 1639:) 1576:) 1547:) 1509:) 1494:) 1472:| 1440:) 1341:) 1337:• 1242:) 1212:) 1167:) 1130:) 1122:. 1105:) 1095:. 1084:) 1067:) 946:lu 843:15 827:) 811:A: 807:? 781:) 757:A: 733:) 696:: 694:A: 663:) 651:A: 647:? 641:11 630:) 614:A: 589:) 561:A: 557:? 551:9. 540:) 530:. 506:A: 500:8. 477:) 464:A: 458:7. 439:) 423:A: 417:6. 406:) 389:A. 383:5. 369:) 356:A: 346:4. 258:, 245:, 220:, 216:, 179:, 159:1. 139:) 118:) 103:) 43:. 3664:( 3630:☺ 3619:P 3615:o 3611:M 3594:( 3534:( 3518:7 3513:1 3488:· 3483:( 3466:( 3445:( 3426:( 3372:( 3350:( 3329:( 3293:( 3279:. 3255:( 3230:( 3208:) 3204:( 3202:· 3155:) 3151:( 3122:) 3112:T 3107:( 3063:) 3053:T 3048:( 3022:( 3005:) 3001:( 2921:( 2905:( 2871:( 2851:( 2640:( 2623:( 2606:( 2589:S 2539:( 2423:( 2376:( 2342:( 2313:( 2278:( 2259:( 2251:" 2241:( 2224:( 2203:/ 2196:☯ 2152:M 2149:\ 2146:C 2143:/ 2140:T 2126:. 2108:☿ 2081:( 2064:° 2041:( 2004:) 2000:( 1998:· 1982:♫ 1979:♦ 1976:♫ 1937:( 1899:· 1894:( 1879:✍ 1872:. 1782:( 1661:( 1635:( 1570:( 1543:( 1524:S 1505:( 1490:( 1453:/ 1436:( 1423:) 1421:0 1419:2 1417:H 1415:( 1383:♫ 1380:♦ 1377:♫ 1333:( 1238:( 1208:( 1188:) 1184:( 1163:( 1126:( 1101:( 1080:( 1063:( 960:) 955:· 949:· 943:· 937:· 931:· 925:· 918:· 911:· 905:· 900:( 878:. 821:( 775:( 727:( 657:( 624:( 583:( 534:( 514:( 471:( 433:( 400:( 363:( 284:A 274:3 266:. 210:A 200:2 169:A 133:( 114:( 99:( 85:· 80:( 47:. 26:)

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Deacon of Pndapetzim - Knowledge

Index