User talk:Mackensen/Archive13

7940:

community HASNT been listened to is exactly how I became involved in this situation. If in a fair and balanced afd, the community decided the article did not need to exist then I would be quite willing to have it deleted - it would delight me that such a discussion finally occurred. However every single one of the afds has been marred with claims of misconduct. If people were so pissed off by the results of the DRV on the first one, then they should have taken up the situation then and there with the person who closed it - open an rfc if necessary, discuss the matter. You don't just shut down a discussion after 45 minutes and claim that it was valid. Circumventing discussion has pissed off a lot of people. To further amplify the issue, the third afd was shut down as delete with a consensus to keep. How hard is it to have an open discussion on the subject without trying to force your opinion on everyone else. If consensus among the community was to have the thing deleted, then why force the third afd to close. It just inflamed things further, as any person experienced in the ways of wikipedia should know it would. If you so strongly think it should be deleted, go and have your say at an afd on the thing - aregue your point long and hard, cite everything you can to back yourself up and if the community indeed agrees with you it will obviously be deleted. But to stifle discussion and ignoring peoples opinions just pisses everyone off. I have to ask, if you truly believe that the community supports deletion - why don't you open a new deletion discussion on it yourself. You might thing it process wankery to go through another afd when as far as you are concerned the right decision has been made, but it WILL satisfy a lot of people and it WILL defuse the situation. It is also a show of good faith for a community divided and would maybe restore some shattered faith for many people who see this whole situation as admins pushing people around to get their own way. (Mackensen, your views on this suggestion would be appreciated as well).

5419:

encyclopedia and writing it are often very different tasks, requiring different skill-sets. However, the manner in which we choose our "official faces" is certain to be of important symbolic value to the morale of our contributors. We have enough difficulty convincing our doubters (and, post-Essjay, dare I say, the general public?) of the competence and decency of our "official faces." Making the selection-process for those faces less directly receptive to community concerns will not help. I don't know what sort of b'crat you'll be; but, if you act in accord with some of the more imperious-sounding language in your platform, I guarantee you that folks will be less happy working here. I understand that some of your language might have been calculated to present yourself as a bold reformer -- if you go too far in injecting your own judgment, rather than the community's, into the moment of decision, things will get much more contentious, and much less encyclopedica-centric, around here. Assuming your request does succeed, I'm committed to conveying these worries to you, in the hope that your conduct will be moderate, and not too revolutionary. :) Best wishes,

8357:

that he was indeed a prince among men - the difference here is that we know mad old great aunts say these things, Kittybrewster is putting these things on an encyclopedia and believing them - houses have become castles, mediocre army officers have become generals and so on - in short all trust has gone. His chief references are books without references by said Great Aunt or his own version of the family tree. We are not talking of the Medici here or even the Windsors but a bog standard ordinary upper middle class British family - all of whom could produce similar people. Kittybrewster himself says he is Sir William Arbuthnot 2nd Baronet, maybe he is, but to boast of such a recent title would be dismissed outside of England as ludicrous, and anyhow how can he write about his own relations in an unbiased way - The other consideration is that he claims his brother to whom he links is a named Member of Parliament - are we sure Kittybrewster is who he claims to be? No baronet or higher I have ever met would edit a page about their own relations - Whatever - it is a nasty can of worms.

7536:

percieved problem. It is the process concerns that have caused my involvement in this case. afds being shut down by those that commented heavily is a BAD THING circumventing further discussion by closing it early is also a BAD THING and it is for those reasons that I urge you to reconsider. You stated that administrators are conservative on the matter of BLP - and rightly enough, but there are administrators on BOTH sides of the BLP debate on this issue, myself included. Mangojuice had some pretty persuasive arguments against the BLP issues raised here, (he is running a website to use the meme for his own advancement, all the facts are properly and accurately sourced) but as far as I am concerned BLP is not the issue. As for other dispute resolution mechanisms, there has been vast amounts of discussion on ANI, the various talk pages etc. As far as I am concerned, an RfC is only going to inflame matters. When those who are supporting a fair discussion are faced with comments and vitriol like

7519:) why he permitted such an abuse of process to occur under his watch. Everything that happens flows from the fact that a valid close was overturned by a non-sensical deletion review. This is Jeff's comment from the deletion review: "Strong overturn, and don't relist. When you have multiple reliable sources referring to him as one of the most famous faces in China, it's a done deal. Period." This has nothing to do with the deletion review process. This should have been ignored. That he failed to comment in the initial deletion debate is regrettable, but a debate which ran for eight days surely had requisite participation. You tell me it's administrator abuse; I see administrators doing all that they can under trying circumstances. 1358: 5769:

example, I would point to Carnildo's RFA. No matter how much good he might accomplish as an admin, I don't think the marginal advantage of one more admin justified the profound discontent it generated, including the RfAr and the retirement of several established Wikipedians. More than likely had he failed that RFA, he could have passed a few months later, and then the community would have been spared the disruption and he would have been spared the taint of that controversy as well. When it comes to large community processes, like RFA, I feel it is better to accept the occasional stupid decision, than to try and fix every error at the expense of harmony in the community.

1895:

running a check (which I don't even know if it does), he can't reveal that either, if it exists. So Giano should probably ask David. However, looking at Giano's block log and recalling another WP:AN thread, it appears that David thought Giano had made a threat to disrupt the encyclopedia. That might have led David to inquire as to whether Giano had been creating or using sockpuppets. I believe David later acknowledged that he misinterpreted Giano's comments. In a court case (US rules) I believe the "reasonable person" standard would apply: Would a reasonable person faced with the same or similar circumstances react in the same way David G. did to Giano's comments?

6233:"RFA should be preceded by 2 days of discussion without votes.", "Bureaucrats should exercise greater discretion in deciding who to promote"/"RFA should be an election decided by vote tallies alone", "Promotion standards should be lowered", and "RFA should be sturcture more like an RFC, without explicit 'Support' & 'Oppose' sections", etc. The cynic in me doubts that any reform can gather a strong supermajority, but my hope in writing such a survey would be to try and bring into relief people's views on RFA reform, and to try and tease out what reform paths the community may be most open to. Are you or Mackensen open to helping design such a survey? 7638:

substantial reasons, when many commentors clearly thought there were BLP issues, does not do those people justice. You note that DRV overturned the original AfD without reflecting whether this was the correct action, something you've apparently just done now, at my suggestion. You're quite right to state that "DRV is here to review the process of deletion"--can you now apply that to the first DRV discussion, the one that actually matters? Much of this commentary is over whether the correct processes were followed, several stages removed from the thing itself--I want to know why the first deletion was overturned, and I can't get an answer.

6203:: Too much emphasis is placed on social currency at RfA. I've written extensively about this elsewhere. In order to achieve my goals, I had to remove myself from the social currency system, and prevent others from comforting themselves by thinking that threatening my adminship was a means to suppress my voice. Not surprisingly, I was attacked on this point anyways in discussions regarding clerks. I had to prevent large amounts of heat being generated tangential to my efforts so that efforts would be more focused on light. Removing myself as an admin was a step in that direction. It's helped, but not as much as I'd hoped. 3202:{{s-start}} {{s-rail|title=VIA}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Toronto-Montreal|previous=Dorval|rows2=2}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Ottawa-Montreal|previous=Dorval|hide2=yes}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Montreal-Quebec|next=Saint-Lambert|rows1=5}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Ocean|next=Saint-Lambert|hide1=yes}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Chaleur|next=Saint-Lambert|hide1=yes}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Saguenay|next=Ahuntsic|hide1=yes}} {{s-line|system=VIA|line=Abitibi|next=Ahuntsic|hide1=yes}} {{s-rail|title=Amtrak}} {{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Adirondack|previous=|next=Saint-Lambert}} {{s-end}} 5642:(Sometimes they may be right. I'm not suggesting that everyone is working with pureness of heart here.) I share the Cunctator's view, as it happens. I think all editors past a certain threshold should be given admin powers, and bureaucrats should be empowered to remove them if the consensus is that they are rank. I think you could be counted on to be reluctant to do so without good reason, because punishment is a lot more burdensome than reward (a lot harder on the conscience to be a regicide than a kingmaker, if you'll pardon murdering that metaphor). 1583:

the channel (if someone would only take my up on my proposal to rename it #wikipedia-en-functionaries I think we'd all be better off). Discussion then moved to whether Bishonen was kicked for posting logs. Note that Bishonen herself raised this matter. If I had been active at the time I would have politely asked her to not raise the matter, but as I've noted above I was (and remain, somewhat) indisposed. After a different user made this suggestion to Bishonen (not in the tone I would have used, but certainly not impolite), Bishonen left the channel.

3437:, one would have to scroll way down. That article is really talking about four different stations that have existed there (Hudson Terminal, the original WTC PATH station, the temporary/current PATH station, and the future/permanent one) so tucking the pertinent next/previous station information into the way bottom is not ideal. Maybe you can come up with a way to make it an option of having that information part of the infobox? I'm not good enough with templates to come up with an solution for that. Is that a possibility? Regards. -- 8047:

with following process than doing the right thing, there is a conflict that can only be resolved by stating flatly that process has an end. So while I'm sympathetic to those feelings I feel that they stem from a very grave misunderstanding of the purpose of Knowledge and the place of our processes in the scheme of things, which is pretty low down. If the process is leading to people repeatedly trying to get an obviously unsuitable item undeleted, then the process is the problem and should be stamped on very, very hard. --

6196:: The Essjay resignation forced my hand, and I ran it considerably earlier than I expected (I'd intended to run it in May). I knew full well beforehand that it would fail, for a number of reasons. But, I had to get it out of the way, lest anyone considering my words regarding RfA reform believed I was grandstanding in an effort to gain favor for a future RfB. My words to this effect would not be enough; I had to have a badly failed RfB to remove any doubts. My intention was to let it run until it was : --> 7963:

someone unbiased and uninvolved. You believe the community belives the article should be deleted - if you are right you end up with the article being deleted, but with the added bonus of finishing this mess. If you had read all that I have said here correctly, you will see that the result I want is a fair hearing for the communities views - i honestly have no care in the world wether it is deleted or kept, as long as it is done honestly and fairly. So in this situation I guess you

7488:

attention and brings the entire project into disrepute. If process is endangering the project then that process needs to hurled with great force. The Arbitration Committee is not going to step in and conduct a deletion request for you. We will resolve disputes between users if need be, although Jeff's refusal to follow earlier steps in the dispute resolution process suggests that dispute resolution is not sought. You're asking the committee to win a content dispute

4396: 6544: 5759:

qualifications of the candidate, that it would help ensure that promotions followed the will of the community and were "untainted" by the personal opinions of the Bureaucrat. The Bureaucrat still makes a decision, but only about the consensus within the community not about the candidates abilities/qualifications. I suspect some of the advocates of this system would be surprised by how it has worked out in practice (but that is a seperate issue).

6261:(or should be trying to accomplish). In other words, I don't think the lack of agreement on RFA is really a symptom of not trying to understanding the problems, but rather that people look at the same evidence and come to widely different conclusions about what the problems are. And yet many people have already formed many varying opinions on what the reform should look like, which does help to elucidate what they percieve the problems to be. 7608:

RfC is going to be a pile-on of a bunch of people ranting and raving how this issue needs to die and that we don't need to discuss it further, peppered with more insults and incivility (as if the crap we're seeing on the Arbcom page isn't enough) and then it gets back to you guys in two weeks anyway. As for your second comment, why would anyone ignore a statement demonstrating why the closure was inappropriate in a DRV discussion? That's

4491: 4470:(I also responded on his, if you'll note, telling him that I'd responded here. Where he got the idea I didn't respond at all I have no idea) As it happens, I've been quite discouraged by the reception I've received thus far and I'm bogged down handling arbitration matters for the forseeable future. I have no interest in pursuing the matter. I believe I've been reverted everywhere, so we're back where we started. Best, 1308: 6294:, it appears that the bureaucrats have quietly and without much fuss reclaimed their discretionary powers by declaring no consensus but promoting on a consensus of bureaucrats. It's pretty much what Mackensen said he would do if he was a bureaucrat. This seems to have gone down quite well (protest has been muted compared to the Carnildo affair). I suspect that we've just witnessed a quiet revolution. 1315: 641: 6454:(edit conflict) It's a fair point that most editors, who don't hang around the process pages as much as Mackensen and I do, don't have the lists of who is a checkuser, etc., at the tips of their fingers. It's also a fair point that those of us who are part of one particular process or another come inadvertently to tacitly assume that everyone will recognize our names. No harm done, I think. 2358:. I also got it slightly wrong before you make changes to the Central Line. It is quite common to terminate at Woodford on the Hainault branch but still a good deal terminate at Hainault (and less at Newbury Park, but do not worry about the latter). If this hasn't been put into effect, most Chesham trains are shuttles to Chalfont & Latimer, expanding to through trains oly at peak times. 541:. The question is whether that's the name she was most commonly known by. It was eventually decided that B-P's title was important enough to be in the article title (especially as there was another Robert Baden-Powell floating around). I'm not convinced that there's anything to gain by moving the article at this point, especially as the intro discusses her full, legal name. 5735:, your "silly" example is just that. No person worthy of the name Wikipedian, not you and not I and certainly not Mackensen, would ever implement a clearly stupid decision just because the majority of people seemed to want it. That would be against the interests of Knowledge. A Wikipedian must not act in a manner so as to bring Knowledge into disrepute. 2255: 5712:

anyone who met X, Y, and Z. If I saw consensus that a person met X, Y, and Z, then I would promote. This is neither radical nor revolutionary. That it is being treated as such is striking. It would be odd indeed for a bureaucrat to run without giving his views--we might as well have a bot! Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3366:. NOT all Montreal-Toronto runs start/end at Union Station. At least one train a day continues to Aldershot. Same thing for Montreal-Ottawa. At least one train a day continues to Fallowfield. P.S. I know where the train stations in Ottawa and Toronto are, I've taken the train on the corridor more than once. That wasn't the point. 5343:

thought it might bring Knowledge. It was unfair to you; you had a reasonable expectation that I would be the only one to read what you wrote. I breached that trust and for that I am sorry. As far as I know I have never done so since then, now more than two years ago. I know not what else I can possibly say on the matter. Yours,

1754:

matter up. She was not, however, threatened with banning in any way; she left of her own accord. I have worked to restore the official (beneficial) uses of the channel. If I may, I did not consider the re-opening of old wounds a good idea, especially as the offending party, Greg, was not in the channel at the time. Regards,

7078: 7836:(AfD) debate is more than enough to decide such a matter; most AfD debates last for just over five days. Moving to stop abuse of process isn't the same as shutting people up. The community spoke and subsequent attempts to stick a microphone up its fundament and make it say something else have failed. -- 5877:

really does reflect the views of a signficant segment of the community. Now its easy to say: "No, they're idiots and (to use the current example) 28% of Wikipedians can't really believe that Danny should be denied adminship", but that's a pretty hard thesis to prove, or even give meaningful evidence for.

8717:

much attention to it, but the point is, there really isn't any disruptive behaviour at present for ArbCom to rule on, if individual users are disrupting, I would suggest a user RfC, but I can't see any evidence of this and you would need to get it certified. My suggestion to you is to take a look at the

8356:

The principle problem is the pages no longer on AFD already deleted, quite a few of them - so many in fact that trust in their principle editor is now non existent. I'm sure, like me, you have had a great aunt who has exalted a family member to near God-like status, and we have all smiled and agreed

8046:

While I'm sympathetic to those who feel disenfranchised, I don't think it's really Knowledge's problem. We have processes for a purpose, and that purpose is to construct an encyclopedia. When the deletion of something blatantly unsuitable for Knowledge is wrongly challenged by people more concerned

7794:

Are you just choosing to ignore the fact that kid has a website on himself capitalising on the exposure the meme provided? Are you ignoring that all the sources are reliable accurate secondary sources? How about that there were several attempts by various people to refocus the article on the meme not

7719:

As a matter of fact I'm capable of reading, but I find the point irrelevant, since the debate was then closed by Drini. Drini is the closing administrator. This close was then challenged at Deletion Review. I've addressed this point below. BLP is at the very center of the deletion debate, which is at

7535:

Actually neither. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted in the long run. What I want is a fair hearing for those members of the community that DO have an opinion, which thus far has not happened. Circumventing discussion in this way is a ridiculous way of trying to fix a

7413:

I've fixed up the changes to the north end of the system per your suggestions; I'm less sure about changing Baker Street/Aldgate. If there's more than one train an hour going through to Aldgate that might be significant enough to leave things as they are. Still, the change can be made if you think it

7240:

This has really been bugging me, and I'm sorry for screwing up your talk page, but I figure it is relevant to the discussion: I don't see how someone can reconcile "I am only assuming Komdori's ethnicity to be not true" with assuming good faith, and I think it is close to a personal attack, too. He

6232:

Durin, for some time I have been thinking about writing an "RFA Reform Survey", as a way to try and grab some focus on the issue. Namely to lay before the community the core of the various proposals that have been made and see if anything can gain some traction. For example, I would ask things like

5902:

Or let's put it another way. Either A) you're right and RFA is being manipulated by a rogue element, or B) RFA is a pretty good reflection of community sentiment and you are in denial about how far the community has drifted from what you wish it was like. Personally, I agree its a bit of both (i.e.

5768:

More to the point though, and as I argued on the RFB, I feel there are times when it is better to have a suboptimal promotion process that allows the occasional "silly" decision to be made, than to have a highly effective promotion process that sews dissent and disruption within the community. As an

3745:

Chris, you may seek to get some more sleep, or something. That edit helped to tighten up the Discussion page, so that the content would be more focused on issues that directly improved the article itself. It is no aid to junk up a Discussion page with personal "Thank yous" to other editors. If you

2188:

Hmph. Put that way I'm reconsidering my own insistence on "clear=both." You're certainly right that the use of {{clear}} accomplishes the same task and makes the formatting optional. Mind you, I don't like having succession boxes align next to images; I don't think that's proper formatting. The way I

1961:

share that information with anybody, as far as I know, and he certainly didn't reveal IP information himself. That's the gravest breach of trust imaginable. I'd like to know where Giano got his information from. To clarify: Giano was the first person to reveal this information publicly, at least that

400:

I've seen such situations as well, and the use of templates prior to blocking ought to tell you something. For me this isn't a hypothetical question. I've often entered into private correspondence with the user in question, to good effect. You need to approach the question from the perspective of one

7962:

But the first DRV found that the consensus wasn't there. But that is imaterial to my suggestion. My suggestion was, that if you so strongly believe the community thinks the article should be deleted, why not , as an act of reconciliation and good faith, open another one and make sure it is closed by

7883:

While I hesistate to use another editor's talk page for this discussion, I believe you're mistaken here. The community did not actually decide anything, but rather, individuals acting within said community did. That those individuals may be mistaken in their actions is very much in question by other

7752:

I don't want to question Viridae's early closure–he asked me to, so I did so. If this comes to arbitration I suspect I'll have to question a number of actions, starting with the overturning of the first deletion debate. As it happens, I'm not currently voting to accept, for reasons given on the main

7705:

Nope, I don't see BLP making for the problem here. BLP can be brought up in the discussion. (And I think that there are sources from FOX news, the BBC and other such sources tells us that we can expect to meet the reliable sources requirement.) What's wanted, but being prevented, is the discussion

7565:

get a fair hearing in the first deletion debate, but unfortunately (for some) that hearing resulted in deletion. I see nothing wrong with that deletion debate, yet somehow it was overturned. Our deletion processes aren't supposed to work that way. BLP goes a good deal farther than adequate sourcing,

7504:

Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee will rightly ask why the initial deletion was overturned, and arbitrators will inquire why the first deletion review was a replay of the deletion debate instead of an evaluation of the close. There's no answer to this that I can see, and I've half a mind to ask

7467:

No, there's no consensus whatsoever, and I don't feel all that strongly on the matter. I know there's a school of thought that argues keeping the succession boxes at the bottom of the article makes the information inaccessible. I'm not convinced either way. Some subsidiary projects (PATH, Washington

5876:

Tony, in many of the cases where people bemoan the tyranny of the "false" minority, I doubt very much that the raw result would change much even if every active contributor on Knowledge got involved. Or to put it another way, I tend to think that what you want to write off as a "small caucus" often

5813:

Within the auspices of our consensus based system, it could also be said that a majority should never be allowed to denigrate and ignore the the views of a significant minority simply so that the majority can force their will upon the community. Also, as much as Knowledge has grown and evolved over

5786:

I don't think anyone has suggested that the bureaucrat do anything other (except in the extreme case you gave) than to interpret the will of the community. However the interpretation must also be consistent with the good of Knowledge. This requires judgement. Rather than a symptom of a problem, I

5661:

Were you suggesting that all editors past, say, a thousand edits, with no blocks in the past three months, or some other reasonable criteria, be adminned, and that we make RfC/Admin conduct actionable by bureaucrats, well, I daresay I'd support that. (Make the proposal and see whether it floats, why

5595:

I'm not sure how many times I have to deny that I would play "kingmaker" before someone believes me. I've pointed out, repeatedly, that it comes down to a question of substantive opposition and that in situations that are controversial I would consult with other bureaucrats. However, you are hinting

5581:

Tony, the "right thing" is not a thing solely discernible in Mackensen's (or your) noggin. That's kind of the point of having consensual procedures. A point that has, I fear, escaped you. Also, Tony, on other issues, you have been very keen on small tails wagging big dogs. Those have been the issues

5405:

of the encyclopedia, and this really is a separate question altogether. This is secondary, perhaps even tertiary to the writing of the encyclopedia itself: people should come here, to Knowledge, to write an encyclopedia, not to participate in RFA. We need to balance people's desire to participate in

4438:

Because I enjoy editing Knowledge as much as the next man and thought that the new templates constituted an overall improvement. I have worked with other editors on these and other railway articles and found broad support for these templates. I confess that I do not understand why you have come here

4241:

Thanks. I think I'll add this to the case in some form. Also, I would like to suggest that we remove the "after 60 days" clause from the Geni remedy you have proposed. It serves no purpose since the odds of an appeal or RFA succeeding during that time are exactly zero, but the Kremlinologists are

4069:

Yes, I've kept up with the privatisation as best I can, though it certainly made a muddle of things. Since the various "lines" are operated by distinct companies–by distinct I mean they rent/lease their own rolling stock and have their own liveries–it makes sense to me to organise the boxes as such.

880:

If that's the case, I will bring it up on AN/I. There is no acceptable reason for banning a dynamic IP indefinitely---in the extremely unlikely event that the same person is still using it a full year from now, it's a trivial matter to renew the block for a second year at that time, thereby avoiding

8658:

Just thought I'd come by to drop my two cents. It's a content dispute because you are arguing over the content of a template, and the arbitration committee don't tend to rule on content disputes - they deal with the behaviour of the disputants and at present, there's no behaviour that merits ArbCom

8022:

don't seem to have been taken seriously, which I think is a bit of a shame. But if you're really committed to the will of the community this is what you, and Jeff will do. Write up and RfC about the conduct of the various parties, and where you think they've conducted themselves poorly, and we'll

7732:

Well, if you meant that was where you first thought there was a problem, well ok, but I wouldn't have called it the original deletion debate. To me, that was the re-opened deletion debate. There was nothing wrong with asking Daniel to reverse his decision, which was what I considered the original

7692:

the focus of concern here. The original deletion debate, that no one seems to want to talk about, ran the correct length of time, was closed correctly, and then overturned by an improper deletion review. That's my reading and no-one's actually told me I'm wrong. The rest of these flows from process

7607:

to occur, that's hardly a mandate. Certainly, if I felt an RfC would be anything more than an excuse to pile on further, I would have gone through it just to legitimize the process (yet another thing people despise, BTW, but seem to care about when it comes to ArbCom), but let's be realistic - any

7062:

Thanks for the oversight. I posted my comment because it was not clear for the comment left on the page that you were going to edit the coments and restore the non-libelous ones. The deletion ate a comment I had spent some time writing and was in the process of adding to the talk page. Oh, well, no

6988:

Just wanna say thanks for helping out. I know you now have about a thousand people yelling at you, "WHY DID YOU DELETE THIS?!?!", but please know that there are those of us that appreciate your swift (hopefully swift enough) removal of the potentially libelous info. I guess protection is the way to

6601:

I've begun to wonder about that myself; the level of polite constructive discussion in this debate is most unusual. If we could encourage that kind of give-and-take more in regular RfAs we might be getting somewhere. That doesn't, however, necessarily do anything for lowering the bar. It also makes

6497:

I supported the RFA as well, but the final tally again was in the discretion range. 117-36, or 76.5%. Even though the bureaucrat's decision went against what I voted, I still think it was a fair call to close it as "no consensus". Concerns over lack of experience were fair enough, and the fact that

5740:

So it was a poor example, but I think it demonstrates something about the mode of thought being employed here. The bureaucrat, in your view, has never had the power to make decisions. I think that is the truly radical view here. It certainly doesn't match anything I know about what it is to be a

5624:

That I say the opposition is necessary, and that I would re-work the format so as to highlight opposition, suggests on its face that your characterization of my intent and motives is incorrect (although, it must be said, not unique). It ought to be easier for good content editors to gain the tools.

4726:

Sure. It's a simple matter of taking the succession boxes, stripping out s-start and end, and adding them to the services parameter. I've done that elsewhere, I just thought that the MARC section was a bit scrunched inside the box. I think that's the last interchange between Amtrak and the WMATA in

3837:

Basically. Name masking is done with stations. The configuration of the /direction/x-line depends on the shape of the line. Like, if you've got a line shaped like a horseshoe left/right is irrelevant so you just work with one template. DART, however, appears to be pretty straightforward. Here's how

3674:

I'm going to jump in here -- I've been watching this go on for about an hour now -- and say that it isn't that the vandalism is unimportant; it's that you keep bringing up discussion of it on a page where it doesn't belong. The article's Talk page is for discussion relevant to improving the article

2367:

Well, at the moment it shows it as though there's a shuttle between Woodford and Hainault (and I know that it used to operate in that fashion). It's probably safe for the moment. I was wondering about the Chesham service--that's an easy change (in one place) and I'll make it at once. If you look at

1894:

Do you mind if I jump in for a second? Since I'm not a checkuser or an IRC fairy, I'm not a party to anything and can't give away any secrets. Per Mackensen's interpretation of the checkuser policy, he can't confirm or deny anything regarding Giano, and if the checkuser has to enter a reason when

7992:

believe that it's right to rerun deletion debates over and over again until you get the result you want, so it would be wrong to rerun this one. We're all trying to build a good encyclopedia here, but this proceduralism has no part in it. It's a means to an end, no more and no less. The end has

7939:

Why rightly so? If the kid is capitalising on the exposure to hopefully make himself a buck, then how is not fair to him that we have a perfectly balanced, inoffensive, accurately sourced article on the situation (meme) that gave him the notability in the first place. I would also have to say, the

7808:

Yes, we're ignoring all of those, and rightly so. This is an area where we must always tread lightly. Such articles are about real, and quite innocent, people who have been hurt by malicious individuals and we must be careful to avoid becoming a conduit for their further persecution, even if they

7612:

what DRV is for - if you really beleive that DRv cannot review erroneous closures, then what's the point? your assertions below worry me, especially when you think the first DRV result was improper - even if it were, wouldn't the second AfD eventually result in the proper outcome if that were the

5969:

Whether the minority would change in a Wiki-wide vote is beside the point. The problem is that good administrators are being opposed for extremely anti-Wikipedian reasons, and serious power is being exerted by a small rump. As I've said before, this indicates a serious problem with the process.

5418:

We are talking about the process by which we invest people with additional "power" at this encyclopedia. Like it or not, there is general agreement that "administrators are often seen as the official face of Knowledge." Nobody knows better than I -- a dedicated Wiki-Gnome -- that maintaining the

3618:

I think that will work for PATH. Not to nit-pick, but the only minor thing that I would do different (if possible and not too much work) is maybe to tweak the colors. It's not a big deal though. Thanks for modifying the template. It will likely work for Washington Metro, though let's try it here

1582:

There is a note in the topic to the effect that discussion of Giano is banned. This raised an inquiry from one user as to whether Giano himself was banned from the channel. This occasioned a warning from a chanop, and discussion switched to the old, somewhat unfruitful topic of non-admin access to

415:

No, that's not at all what I'm getting it. This has nothing to do with IAR and everything to do with treating other editors with respect and assuming good faith. You should never find yourself threatening a good faith contributor who's going over the edge, you're trying to bring them back from the

8716:

I disagree that template disputes are more important than article content disputes, we're here to create an encyclopedia, not a sea of templates. Templates don't trump policy, they just make articles look pretty, most of them aren't even needed. I saw the RfC request, it doesn't look like you got

7650:

Rough count was exactly what I was trying to avoid. I closed that DRV as open a new discussion, because the vast majority of the "keep deleted" votes were either not relevent to a DRV (ie afd style) or cited BLP claims. The BLP claims were then answered by quite a number of people, rendering them

6523:

gives the name and email of a contact person for that IP. Perhaps you can open a dialogue to find out if the library has user logs, or if not, would they be willing to react quickly if another attack occurs. We could consider permablocking all anon editing from that IP as an incentive; it might

6320:

Though I opposed Cyde's nomination, I am glad that the bureaucrats reclaimed their discretionary powers and promoted Danny. That said, I am of the belief that it happened largely because it was Danny and the bureaucrats would have promoted him whether there was a percentage akin to Carnildo 3 or

5711:

When bureaucrats run they are asked to explain their views on adminship-granting. Most of them quote a specified number, although that number does not exist in policy any more than the RfA process itself does. I have said I will promote on consensus. Note that I said I would be willing to promote

4895:

Like I said above I am stopping blocking users until there is an agreement on this issue, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a year. Also I think you misunderstood my last post I said that I was sorry for not being able to respond to further questions for several hours I had

4088:

It's unnecessary for any station article to link to every other station in a particular geographic area, when all such stations are one or two clicks away through a less obtrusive method. The article already links to neighbouring stations and reachable termini. Additionally, through service route

3810:

I'm actually here to try to find out who made the initial comments in August 2006 about Fuzzy Zoeller that were truly libelous. It's when that simple inquiry gets edited out of existence that I begin to liken Knowledge's editors to "hive mind" conspirators. Cart before the horse, Chris. It's a

3693:

Ah, but Chris, when I learned that lesson and tried to further improve the Discussion page by removing content that does not contribute to the improvement of the article itself, that edit was reverted. Seems that there's a cabal or hive-mind in action here. So, it is only too easy to also infer

1725:

And that is a very bad habit, I must say. After all, Bishonen's "rude" talk alluded to above wasn't about Giano. It was about her being kickbanned mysteriously. That's a separate issue from anything that occurred with Giano, but it's the same issue in terms of "people on that IRC channel whose

1586:

The discussion in question was short, and quickly redirected by an active chanop. It pertained to Giano but did not actually involve any discussion of him, save the correct assertion that he is not an administrator. I would appreciate Bishonen verifying that I have discussed the proper event, and

611:. Generally you should add at least a brief description of the problem, since the checkuser who answers the new request might be different from the one who answered the first request. Usually, a brief explanation of why you suspect the new accounts, maybe with a couple of diffs, is all you need. 6107:

You are very welcome. I am sorry about the confusion. When I listed Everyking I was thinking of statements like "I don't agree that it would constitute a mandate; to change the system general approval would be required on the RfA talk page or some similar page..." As you have probably already

4160:

Off the top of my head he's revert-warred over the site notice repeatedly, and revert-warred over the arbcom elections last December. I'd have to scrounge for the specific diffs. It was also warring that caused Ed Poor to desysop him the first time (a dubious precedent, given that Ed himself was

1942:

From a technical standpoint it's quite easy: create a different account and go raise hell. The harder question is whether he would have been willing to do so; was he angry or desperate enough? I don't like to speculate about that publicly–it's unkind and uncharitable. At the same time, we aren't

1753:

Geogre, I agree with you that such behavior wasn't acceptable. I've taken steps to stop all such behavior. In addition, I considered it useful to eliminate discussion of past events because they would easily lead to the same problems. Bishonen is correct; an arbitrator asked her not to bring the

1578:

Yes, there is. I promised that Chanops would be more vigilant, and indeed we are. That being said, we're not there all the time–and neither is Bishonen, or she would have witnessed a showdown between three Chanops and another user over this very issue of civility and politeness in discourse. I'm

6484:

the candidate.) I think it is good that the person was promoted. Would it have been a good call if the level of support had been 68%? I don't really think so, there were other, better reasoned oppose votes as well, for instance Joturner who expressed concern over lack of experience in Knowledge

6342:

We'll see what happens in future. However, not all close RFAs run on first-time candidates are as easy to call as Carnildo's and Danny's, so I wouldn't read too much into the failure of the bureaucrats to make judgement calls when they have insufficient information to make a judgement. In the

5342:

It brought me no pleasure, and I always wished later I'd simply forwarded them to Arbcom. They ignored them anyway, near as I can tell. I've apologized before but I'm content to do so again. I was wrong to disclose private communication between two people in a public fashion, whatever benefit I

3432:

I'll have to think about it. It is better, though still not sure it fits all articles. I also like the look of your template. Scrolling all the way to the bottom for the next/previous stations is not ideal. It's most pertinent information, in my opinion, and a good way to link articles with

1784:

Well, if you think I'm a liar then nothing I can possibly do will change your mind. Did you ever stop to consider that I have been truthful and forthright throughout? Has it ever crossed you mind? Will you ever respond to my query about Donald Crawford's degree of relation to Sir Charles Dilke?

1243:

Done. Now if this was Jimbo, I am going to hold you personally responsible ;-). I have an IP from the e-mails he sent me, do you think I should block that as well? You ran a checkuser on him, did he ever use a 76. IP to edit, or e-mail only? You probably can't answer that, but what the heck ;-)

8706:

But I think that content within a template is much more important than content in an article, as Template:Trivia is scolding all the editors for something that's not in any guideline or policy. (And is now doing this scolding on thousands of articles.) The template is purporting to enforce a

8255:

I know this may be a strange request, but do you have a copy of the log from last night in -admins? I only want the part I was in from the point "Zsinj|Class is now know as Zsinj" to where you said you were going to bed and I said "Me too." I did not have logging configured and I thought I had

8071:

In the course of trying to raise this article from the dead, you have made numerous allegations of misconduct, primarily by administrators but also seemingly by anyone who disagrees with you. The article is dead, but you could do something about the alleged misconduct by following the dispute

7022:

Does this really need oversight? If it will tear the page history apart, it seems there would be an "editorial reason to keep the revision", which disqualifies it from oversight criterion 2, and criterion 1 doesn't apply so much. Just wondering, since I like to keep things as GFDL compliant as

6007:

And if it is not a small group, but rather a significant minority within Knowledge that feels people like you don't take adminship seriously enough? If you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, how do you know you aren't the one who has failed to change with the times and is now advocating an

5428:

All things in moderation, including moderation! Seriously though, I don't feel as though I'm saying anything new. I want to help the community towards making RfA a kinder, gentler place with a more level playing field. I'm not a revolutionary and (I hope) I'm not a reactionary, warm regard for

8615:

I explained myself in the edit summary, and in the note the Ryulong has now nicely blanked from his page. I think its great that there's a talk page discussion; by the same token as your precaution to me, it would be nice if someone said "see talk page" in that handy edit summary. I've also

7216:

I find it offensive that you claim I am not Korean because I don't fall lock-step in with what propaganda you might have heard about political issues. Not only am I pro-Korean, I am a patriot. I also think that by following policies here we can "win the important battles" rather than losing

6841:. The community is strange and I don't always agree with it (as in this case). I was reading the whole page a bit at a time over several days but unfortunately it ended before I finished reading and I missed out. My suggestion; become a steward at meta and de-sysop everyone who opposed you ;) 6256:

Well, do you have some new suggestion for getting at the question of "What's wrong with RFA"? Much data has already been collected, in no small part thanks to you, but I think the question of what's wrong with RFA still largely ends up being a subjective determination based on widely varying

5641:

Denying that you would play kingmaker would probably have more force were you not standing on a platform of asking to be made one. Which opposition is "substantive" is in the eye of the beholder. Often on Knowledge, one faction will describe another as composed of "troublemakers" or "trolls".

5458:

receptive to community concerns. If you gave a random person total fiat, probability would suggest the results would be more moderate than they currently are, because that person would more likely come from the moderate core of the community than from the fringe which currently dominates RfA.

7917:

Um, I think you missed the point, which was that said administrators were considered by other people to be mistaken. Since being an administrator does not give a person absolute infallibility, that is quite possible, don't you think? If you wish to convince me, and perhaps others that said

7487:

No, I think my initial reading stands. Regardless of process concerns, the only important issue is the proper interpretation and application of BLP. Administrators are rightly conservative on the question, since it's information regarding living persons that regularly attracts negative media

6356:

I do think that granting probationary adminship to close cases could be a solution. Potential administrators are intimidated by the atmosphere in that place. I see that a lot of hard work will still be required to put that very important mechanism back into a real Knowledge consensus-based

6187:

At this time, no coherent effort has been made to determine what system should replace RfA that would erase the problems extant at RfA and achieve the actual goals of RfA. No proposal to supplant RfA can realistically be made without providing an answer to the question "What do we replace it

1739:

to the aggrieved. The aggrieved cannot submit the evidence, cannot gain sanctions, and cannot prevent future bad acts. For those reasons, Knowledge doesn't need to link to those IRC channels where such is the case. If no one may alter the composition of the group without James Forrester's

6489:

frivolous, maybe they were concerned that Sam would start blocking vandals and newbie testers without adequate warning. But in the discretion range, I think it was a fair choice to promote, and we got another good admin on the roster. (I may be a bit biased here, given that I supported that

4832:

Actually, given that "please ban me" requests were two of the user's three contributions, and the third was an image uploaded with the summary "this image is copyrighted, who cares?", I indefed for trolling. I didn't want to give this guy what he wanted, but the alternative seemed worse....

7637:

Well, by a rough count more people wanted to keep the debate closed and article deleted, so by that metric alone I question your decision to close the debate early. Your claim that there are no BLP issues involved is one that I don't agree with, and that you asserted as much without giving

5758:

Tony, I believe if you climb back in the depths of RFA the original idea was that the community should be the one deciding on whether a candidate should be promoted and not that 'crat. The logic there is that by expecting the 'crat to judge only the consensus of the community, and not the

8081:

There's been misconduct on both sides, it has nothing to do with who agrees or disagrees with me. And trust me, if the arbcom case does get declined, it will go to RfC, and then it will end back up at Arbcom for the same reasons. The article is not dead, thankfully, that much is sure.

6624:

No, because the discussion forms only one component of my concern. My primary concern is that the barrier to adminship is far, far too high. In particular, I find that the insistence on X number of project space edits to be without foundation (and, as I recall, you advocate the practice).

6479:

the vote count was 68-19, or 78.2% support. This is within the 75-80% discretion range I support. I felt that most (not all) of the oppose arguments were strange ("reverts vandalism but does not warn the vandal" seems to turn the reversion of vandalism into a bad thing which was used

6520:) it seems like there is nothing confirmable. (For example, I have sometimes edited from a public library and I have no way of knowing who else might have used it.) This person made attacks on 3 different days, so he/she may be a regular visitor or lives in the area. Whois 8056:

There is an increasing number of people who disagree that it's unsuitable, Tony. Again, you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't suitable, and your continued misrepresentation of the facts concerning this article do not indicate a true understanding of what's going on.

5453:

At the moment the selection process is geared toward empowering a 25% hard core (for instance, Mackensen's RfB is "failing" with a mere 80% support). I'm not sure how you could call this process "receptive to community concerns;" I think it would be hard to design a process

319:

The Showster was stuck behind the autoblock on that IP. Jimbo Wales allowed for The Showster to be unblocked in an attempt of good faith. I was nervous about lifting the block on the IP to allow The Showster to edit again and so I asked Jimbo about it. His response is in

7893:

You've both been Wikipedians long enough to know that administrators are responsible for determining the will of the community within the narrow context of the views of individual Wikipedians and the broader context of Knowledge policy as determined by community consensus.

3400:

I already talked to the Washington Metro people and consensus was to keep things as they were. I'm not planning on touching the NYC Subway either--far, far too complicated. My main desire was to present the information more clearly and concisely and to avoid duplication.

6614:

Mackensen, as an RfA regular, may I say that most RfAs are this friendly -- the discussion is less extensive only because wiki-philosophical issues are less-often invoked. Perhaps your concern over the current system is born from your lack of recent experience with it?

6242:

I'm not. Reason; age old complaint from me. No effort to determine what is wrong with RfA, and no effort to determine if X proposal answers those problems while adhering to the goals RfA should be striving towards. Which system to use to replace RfA is really one of the

4542:

I work from my office and i work in shifts ,so i do not know who uses this system and why.i do not use proxy,it is from local admin to use it, so I can not change there policies I am just work for money here.You guide me what to do.this is 1st time i am facing this much

8707:

policy; this is quite different from a POV edit or whatever. It is apparent to me that word from above will be required in this case - the bot author will not change his mind, and neither will the anti-trivia-section editors who keep reverting the changes. Thanks -

5651:

I'm not trying to characterise your motives. I assume good faith, of course. You clearly want a change in the way things are done more than you want power! I'm not suggesting otherwise. And as I said, I do agree wholeheartedly that the current beauty contest is no

7566:

a point also made during that first deletion debate. Indeed, the discussion on that first debate alone was quite sufficient for the topic, and any arbitration that came of this would focus on why things went so far, and why it was that said debate was overturned.

7221:

named with Korean names or written from Korean points of view rather than just things that are commonly that way in English. Overall I think we will lose more that way. It is very revealing that when someone comes along who tries to be balanced you see them as

5441:

I'm an RfA-regular -- heck, you might call me the Russell Kirk of the place, given my conservative stances! ;) -- and if you'll let me know of any way to make the place kinder and gentler, I'll be happy to help. I'm all aboard for that effort! Kind is good! :)

7598:

I didn't have a "refusal," I figured that the amount of discussion on the topic regarding people's complete inability to allow any other result was enough. The discussions at AN/I, at DRV, at the multiple AfDs were obvious. Earlier steps in dispute resoltuion

1677:

It is understood, as I've indicated above, that "Giano" means Giano and associated editors and disputes. I regret having to use his name specifically but I think most would agree that he has been the focal point of this dispute. I'm always open to alternatives.

7742:

BTW, if you want to question Viridae's early closure of the second DRV and the re-opening, I suggest you also question the numerous previous early closes of that second DRV. Not saying one wrong justifies another, but I think that does show the real probelm.

7284:

Probably all the IPs are open proxies. Many were blocked as proxies by dmcdevit within the last few days and I blocked as many of the rest as I could be sure about. I'm puzzled about the account names, are they confirmed or part of Raul's working notes only?

5791:

suffers from deep flaws that breed unrealistic and fundamentally destructive expectations. A minority can never be allowed to exert control over Knowledge. Recent attempts by organised minority groups to do so using the adminship process will not succeed.

6321:

not. There are many other similarly close RfAs that should obviously, in my mind, been successful but were not simply because the bureaucrats did not want to spend their social currency on such a "trivial" RfA. Or at least that is the cynic inside me.

5400:

I don't intend that my remark be interpreted too broadly, no. I agree wholeheartedly that people should be happy writing the encyclopedia, but we aren't talking about writing the encyclopedia! What we're talking about is selecting people to help with the

2846:

defines it as Pasing - Ostbahnhof and gives a nice view of the planned 2nd Stammstrecke. Personally I would have just branched those off where they leave. It is more the optics I am concerned about with an everincreasing number of lines going through.

6515:

Since the IP is registered to a public library, there is very little that can be done unless there is an obvious instance in the record of a user editing from an account and then logging out and posting anonymously. From Mackensen's previous comment

890:

Indefinite is just that--indefinite. For the moment it needs to be blocked until it's decided to unblock. Go ahead and raise the matter on ANI if you feel you must, but I think we'd all be better served if you dropped me a quick email instead. Yours,

401:

who wants to defuse the situation. This is very different from counter-vandalism. If a user is going off the rails then there's no need to degrade them prior to blocking because that just makes getting them *back* on the rails all the more difficult.

2004:

I repeat what I said above: all wikimedia checkusers (not just those on this encyclopedia) have access to that log. Any checkuser could have released that information, and I doubt very much that it was DG, because he keeps such things under his hat.

8696:

Actually I did try an RfC and posted to Third Opinion as well - sorry I added that after you saw the RfA. (I had not seen the template to fill in, so I winged it, and another editor helped find the template, so my filling in of it was piecemeal.

1652:

Your question can't be answered in that fashion. What I'm telling you is that a list would be inappropriate because such discussion in general is inappropriate. Therefore, there isn't a list, but if there was an explicit list, you would be on it.

1774:

Current edits on the notice board can no longer be ignored by any editor, once and for all Oh Mackensen, how much more of all this do you think peole are going to beleive. Is any editor's true identity safe in that bloody channel? Yes or No?

7674:

I have to agree, BLP isn't a focus of the concern here. It's a sideshow to the real issue of administrative action that stifled discussion, and lead to some unfortunate wheel warring, thus rendering the question of an RFC somewhat moot.

5679:

Fair enough. I suspect that the present RfB will fail, but I'm going to buck another trend at let it run seven days because I think good and interesting discussion has come of it. After that we'll see what's possible. Thanks for your reply,

4525:

You're editing through a proxy by the looks of things, and the proxy is substituting html special characters. I'd strongly suggest that if you're using a proxy on purpose cease doing so; if you're not then change your computing environment.

2415:

No, I think I understand you. That is, main line trains from London terminate at C&L, with limited service between C&L and Chesham during peak times. In addition, there's a shuttle between C&L and Chesham. Do I have the thread?

7205:

As for LactoseTI, we work at the same institution and have lunch on a regular basis; I've been too busy to contribute (and actually I am still too busy to contribute much) but poke around from time to time. He sent me an email about the

2405:

Above that is, trains from Chesham terminate at, lets call it C&L, and only continue to and from London at peak. I am not trying to muck you about and am sorry i have not got think quite right and have possibly not been quite clear.

6502:

very new is true. That CSCWEM, with more experience under his belt, and perhaps some more maturity, wound up promoted a few months later shows that it was not all bad that he didn't get the admin tools at once. He is now one of our best

3771:

The proper thing to do in such a case, rather than removing six-month-old inactive discussion, would be to archive the discussion instead of deleting selected snippets of it (especially when you remove context for replies that you did

6694:

It's my misfortune to inform you that your request for bureaucratship was not successful. I know you were under no confusion about your request being different than the average and I commend you on your guts for proposing a change. -

6370:

It looks to me like the fall-out from the Danny request for adminship may have been very sharply limited, and if that proves to be the case in the long run, say a week or two, then we've got a clear sign of how we can move from here.

6433:

Your tone could be a bit less...mocking, Mackensen. I am not infallible and was merely taken by surprise that admins were making a bee-line for editors that seemed to me, based on my current information, to be only "suspected" sock

3485:) I can't get it to work right, but with some time I think I could figure out what's wrong. The look of your infobox is way better, and I think agreeable to people, if it can be made to accommodate unique aspects of the system. -- 2785:

article. It would be possible to create it just as another line, but we'd also have to define all the possible termini for it. Complicated, but workable. The important question is whether this would improve the end-user experience.

7795:

the person - ie to "include only material relevant to their notability". What you think is trash, others think is notable enough to be included and it is the communities voice not that of a handfull of editors that should prevail.

6602:

it difficult to determine how many different people regard each objection as important (take for example the fellow who indicated the agreed with all the opposes–he can't possibly mean that, as some of them contradict each other).

2814:. The major issue, as I see it, is that the lines running over the Stammstrecke are not set in stone. The S1 and S2 veer off after Laim, for example. We can represent that with boxes, but it means that Stammstrecke is a variable. 943:

Per the Foundation's privacy policy I cannot "out" an IP address under regular circumstances. This looks like simple 3RR evasion and should be dealt with accordingly. If it's obviously him just block the IP as though it was him.

8121:

I could, but I think Arbcom should accept the case with or without an RfC. There's too much misconduct to willfully ignore. Besides, you're only asking me to do that to delay the inevitable, why would I ever take that advice?

7809:

themselves make unwise decisions. We are not like their persecutors. We are not callous. We are Knowledge. The community spoke and the article died. That you objected is not a reason for the community to change its mind. --

7254:

You said "It is simply very unnatural and almost strange for a user who claims to be of Korean descent to not defend the Korean arguments." As far as this goes, I do defend Korean arguments. But you said, "What if we apply

6718:

Although your nomination did not pass (and I was an opposer), I do think you have some good ideas for reform, and hope you continue to advance them to the community where hopefully a consensus can be had. Happy editing, —

6152:

RfA has failed in its mission to supply Knowledge with a sufficient number of admins to keep vandalism in check and prevent routine backlogs in a number of areas. A number of pieces of data can be put forth to support this

7150: 7868:

The article is dead not because of the will of the community, but because of administrators who decide that the will of the community does not matter. Your consistent revisionism regarding this topic is not tolerable.

8602:

Xoloz, in case you didn't notice there are people on the talk page discussing that change, generally supportive. If you could take a second between rollbacks to explain yourself I think we'd all be better off. Cheers,

2320:

Whilst i'm here, most trains on the Central Line do not cntinue to Woodford on the Hainault branch but terminate at Hainault. Also on the Northern Line, most trains terminate at Kennington on the Charing Cross branch.

6343:

Carnildo and Danny cases, at least they could look at the record and say "no great risk in promoting." In the Carnildo case they were even more cautious than that and, and promoted Carnildo for a probationary period.

8386:

FWIW, I'm writing such a book on my own clan (though not much lately). However it has hundreds of references, so hopefully 20 years from now one of my cousins won't be making dickish entries on the XXXXXXX family.

1943:

supposed to take risks. Checkusers are expected to be paranoid. At the same time, we're expected to operate in secret so that said paranoia doesn't reflect badly on the person checked if they've done nothing wrong.

3314:

The Montreal-Ottawa trains end/start at the "new" station in east end Ottawa (just east of the Rideau Canal). It is the station that replaced the original one in downtown Ottawa near the parliament buildings. See

8032:

Far quicker and cleaner to follow my suggestion. Also an act of good faith an attempt to restore the faith of the large subset of the community who feel themselves wronged by a blatant disregard of their views.

5563:

My comment mentions two things. (1) doing the right thing and (2) facing down opposing minorities. In the end, Knowledge has to make a decision. We probably shouldn't continue with the situation currently on

1616:

Those teeth speak louder than anyone can possibly imagine. Thankfully I indeed have my codeine now and can look forward to a good night's sleep. I'll review again once I feel up to it. Thanks for your response,

1734:

in any sense. For me, the central offense is that the channel is used by people to behave in ways that are unacceptable socially as well as in flagrant disregard of Knowledge's practices and policies, and yet

7210:

article because he knew I know more about that event than he does, and I had a strong interest in it. Everything from the arguments have been posted for all to read, not everyone posts without reading them

4325: 2201:

Well, the thing is, not using clear=both allows making the page more compact. That way the succession boxes look like they're part of the content rather than added as an afterthought. Take, for instance,

8758:

To take the argument to an extreme (which Template:Trivia is not), suppose someone created a template about biography articles and robotically attached it to every biography article, and the template said:

2897:

Ah, you were just too late on that one, I went off-line. And sorry I don't know any names for that. And the German guy i was corresponding with for the U-Bahn articles has gone on an indefinete wikibreak.

657: 221: 7651:

invalid as a way to determine consensus of the discussion. This just left the "overturn" votes - most of which were proper DRV style ones, which were citing improper closure. Hence why it was re-opened.

6311:

Taking one RfA of a highly unusual (in fact unprecedented) candidate as evidence of some revolt and RfA somehow magically being cured is a serious stretch. The track record speaks blatantly otherwise. --

4930: 2018: 1665:

Fair enough. Could you then tell me what is the current message the users see when they log in. Something like: "Public logging prohibited, disscussion of .... prohibited, etc." Or is it a secret too? --

8342:

I'm serious as well, about the Arbuthnots in any event. I'm looking at the articles presently on AfD and seeing what sources I can find for them (I'm serious about the other matter, but another time).

7432: 7245:

Korean he would think the way I think, because I'm real Korean and I know how Koreans think." I find whole argument here really insulting. Who appointed Good friend100 spokesman for the Korean people?

2607:

as well, so I hope it will be sorted out, and some clarification given about banned users posting on their talk pages. I'd feel bad if someone's block got extended because I tried to help him. Cheers.

859:

If it's "for the moment", what's wrong with, say, a 1-year block, rather than an indefinite one? I thought that was normal Knowledge blocking policy? Even the arbcom doesn't issue indefinite blocks. --

6108:

noticed, I just took out Everyking's name from my list of people I am agreeing with. That is cleaner I think than trying to explain on your RfB where I agree with or disagree with Everyking. Best,

656: 6052:

Which brings me back to one of my points above, I don't think the group is nearly as small or insignificant as you believe it to be. Aside from name calling, what proof do you have that they are?

2798:

Actually, I suppose we could just define the Stammstrecke as a line that runs between Pasing and Ostbahnhof, and have lines hive off as needed. Let me try this somewhere and see what it looks like.

2945:

Mack, I'm asking you to ignore him right now. Honestly, he is trolling and this is out of the bounds of normal sanity. He's freaking out and accusing everyone of sysop tools of acting out of line.

8527:

Don't you see he had a two month extra block for the removal of that template, but he only had a one month block for sockpuppetry... Can't you just let him off with his original one month block?--

8305:

I'm far too gone to be reformed, but there we are. I've got a subscription to the online version of the DNB and I'm looking for Arbuthnots--there do seem to be a few, but the name isn't uncommon.

2830: 6662:

Deal. And thanks for writing back. At least there is one admin willing to converse with us lowly peons. You guys should have a focus session or something about that. Communication is key. --

691:

and the only response was to send me to checkuser, even though I said I couldn't see a puppermaster just new socks every day. Checkuser says no so next I should...? Thanks again for any advice --

6197:

100 votes in the hole, assuming 90% threshold. There needed to be no question that not only did it fail, but that any future attempt would be similarly doomed. Once it achieved that, I withdrew.

3842:

should just contain Westmoreland, because there's no ambiguity. You don't need a switch statement at all. Ditto with Blue: Ledbetter on the left, Downtown Garland on the right. Hope this helps,

4210: 4205: 4200: 4195: 4190: 4185: 4180: 4175: 3647:

I was thinking the template colors. Having the grey "Services" heading and then repeat the grey right under it isn't ideal. But, it's a nit-pick detail. Let's stick with what we have now. --

6209:: I was spending lots of time on a number of different facets. I needed to step away from them and focus my efforts solely on reform. The straw on the camel for me in this regard was creating 2155:

At the moment I'm reconsidering my own participation there. Until I've figured that out I have no business acting as op. I can, however, grant you access to #wikipedia-en-functionaries. Best,

1579:

reviewing the discussion she's referring to now; I was not active in the channel because at that very moment I was recovering from a root canal. I have my logs in front of me, so let me recap.

4604: 3219:

I'm talking about the phrases "toward Aldershot" and "toward Fallowfield", two phrases that do only appear in the finished version and that are meaningless & irrelevant. "Dorval" is OK.

2833:, but we would need a proper reference anyway. I'll ask Flo if he is online on the German wiki. Anyway the situation would not be too dissimilar to the S1 which has two termini in the west. 6802:

Hey, it's hypocrisy like that which gives me a good laugh–right before I block them. With an edit summary like that I was dealing with a sockpuppeteer; I don't remember who at this point.

2872:

I am happy with both solutions. The current one with all the endpoints works equally well as just using Pasing/Ostbahnhof. It will just mean I have to start putting up all these stations.

7918:

administrators were not mistaken, but instead correct to make their decision the method to do so is not to deny the questioning, but to answer it. Sadly, that only worsens the problem.

6270: 1361:

Geogre and Bishzilla (shown in human form) discuss how to dispose of the stinking carcasses. Blue skies and sunshine return to Knowledge, while the Featured Article crowd cheers madly.

5839:

I'm sure that it isn't. However the Wikipedian view of adminship is not well represented in the small caucus that, time and again, misrepresents itself as a "significant minority" on

1906:

There have been other good, long-term editors who have gone off the rails; whether it should have been obvious that Giano was not one such person is something that I can't evaluate.

181: 1822:

Let me clarify. I'm allowed to tell you if you've been checked, but I would prefer to do so privately. I cannot disclose information to you regarding Giano, Ghirla, or anyone else.

903:

In that case, could you at least put a useful message so someone caught in an accidental blocking doesn't receive the useless explanation, "do not pass go, do not collect $ 200?" --

6852:

I would have lost my bit then, cos' to be honest running for stewardship appears to be easier than running for b'cratship on en.wp! (stewardship elections are on percentages) ;) -

7437: 7131: 6494: 4866: 688: 6839: 8399: 3839: 3469: 2449:

Could you change someting else actually? Although shown on maps etc etc etc, the DLR is actually not part of the LU, rather it is a seperate system with many things integrated.

1517: 648: 7818:

Actually, the community spoke and many believed the article should not have died. Your consistent attempts to shut us up do not demonstrate the community's actual desires. --

4605: 5219: 5127: 5111: 4312:

Oh, Very Bad Things indeed. I was about a revert away from calling the school district. Anyways, the range looks clean, so go ahead and unblock and let's see what happens.

7325:

This is just a follow-up -- I want to move on, but I need to first know if that sockpuppet stuff is being looked at by the appropriate folks. Thanks for any info. -BC aka

3604:

Now, if I could get broad-based support for bringing s-rail/s-line to the NYC subway that would be one thing, but the evolved system over there appears quite complicated.

220: 7372: 6213:

in mid February. I was entirely too focused on detail data. I was spending far too much time counting rings in trees and nowhere near enough time flying above the forest.

7335: 4485: 3776:

delete). But you're obviously just here to argue and throw around accusations of "hive mind" and conspiracy, so you should probably go find someone else to argue with.--

2206:. This particular page has several succession boxes and sets of images. I'd argue each belongs in the section they're pertinent to. Compare Waterloo to, for example, 1880:

Or the abusive use of sockpuppets. Or, in some cases, a stated intent to disrupt the project. No, you've been polite under the circumstances. Moreso than others anyway.

8773: 8154: 8137: 8127: 8087: 8062: 7908: 7874: 7850: 7823: 7618: 5071: 4133: 3567: 3547: 7259:? Then we could move this article to the Korean name." I believe that logic to be flawed. I don't think I have to join with you just because you are another Korean. 8637: 7442: 2626: 2023: 1481:

This information is from verifiable sources and should be included. Mendoza has strong political opinions, and his past political activities are therefore relevant.

370: 7132: 5212: 5120: 5104: 8785:

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects

8521: 5814:

the years, I'm sure that at some level the majority view of what an admin is today simply isn't the same as what it was when we first started contributing here.

5187:. He didn't, and I blocked. Incidentally, I originally caught NicAgent investigating a vandalism-only sockpuppet (again, outside the RFCU mechanism). You can see 8884: 8647: 7919: 7885: 7782: 7744: 7734: 7711: 7676: 7468:

Metro) have this as their preferred method, which is why I designed the functionality in the first place. Feel free to change the location as you see fit. Best,

7366:

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

7182: 5362:

Both answered, although probably too vague for your liking. It's difficult answering without a test case, and doubly difficult dealing only with boundary cases.

5119:

Any chance you can clarify where exactly the checkuser request is for the IP? Or was it a private ArbCom checkuser? Some people have be asking questions! Cheers

5031: 1518: 4089:

links and categorisation, you're no more than two clicks away from every other station in the region. The user, meanwhile, is presented the most relevant links

5130: 4935: 4624:

Supposed to be fixed now. You might want to send a note to the mailing list urging arbitrators to check that any votes they cast today are correctly recorded.

3653: 3625: 3580: 3556: 3491: 3443: 253: 241: 4503: 1808:

It is my understanding of policy that I'm not allowed to do this. Let me tell you, though, that I agree such a check would be out of bounds and uncalled for.

675:

Checkuser is often declined for obvious cases like this one. If you're concerned about identifying an underlying account then that may be a different matter.

8150: 8123: 8083: 8058: 7904: 7870: 7846: 7819: 7747: 7614: 6663: 4509: 2169:

My answer means no, because at the moment I'm not there myself and strongly considering resigning my op access. Therefore, I'm not currently adding anybody.

760: 7561:

If you're not prepared to work with the existing mechanisms then I'm afraid we can't help you. I would prefer that you address my main point: the community

1030: 6507: 5610:) argued some time back for "Mak admin rights automatic for all regular editors." I find it increasingly difficult to disagree with that suggestion. Best, 4685: 2972:

It was added by a banned user who was trolling elsewhere. Not being an expert on chemistry I didn't want to take any chances. Feel free to add it back in.

2928: 1103: 577: 8112:

You don't have to wait for the arbitration case to be finally removed to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. You can start now. Please do so. --

7922: 7898: 7888: 6687: 5939: 4127: 3812: 3747: 3699: 3479: 3069: 2536: 2040: 2029:

I should say what this is. It is a checkuser on a guy who is evading blocks which was deferred to you since you did the original checkuser on the guy.

1482: 1473: 8845: 8816: 8745: 8711: 8691: 7277: 7092:

For effective use of oversight and page protection to keep Knowledge out of trouble- and thereby protecting an apparently innocent person's reputation.

6727: 3941: 3635:

The line colors or the template colors? The former is changed easily, the latter I'd be loath to do since it would affect templates all over the place.

2189:

would avoid it in image-heavy, text-poor articles is by using the "gallery" tags to corral the images in their own section. That's my two cents anyway.

8460: 8158: 8144: 8131: 8091: 8076: 8066: 7912: 7878: 7863: 7854: 7840: 7827: 7578:

As an aside, I'm concerned that you're arguing process over what many if not most consider a BLP matter without having an actual opinion on the issue.

7540: 6077: 6056: 6012: 5974: 5907: 5851: 5818: 5796: 5773: 5749: 5717:

To an extent, yes, I would be taking the step that a candidate be judged on his merits. If this is a radical step then things are worse than I feared.

5551: 5222: 5206: 5114: 5095: 4881: 4352:

is strange: I see the first para, then white space (apart from the template contents), then the rest of the intro and rest of the article as normal. --

4134: 3164: 2635: 2245: 7785: 7760: 7737: 7727: 7714: 7700: 6699: 6571:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the 4266: 4250: 4168: 2614: 2598: 2586: 2574: 8638: 8116: 6900: 6427:

They weren't directly implicated by checkuser? Gosh, that's news to me. When I say that they'r the same user, I'm explicitly speaking as a checkuser.

6039: 4477: 4465: 4368: 4356: 4343: 3648: 3620: 3575: 3551: 3486: 3438: 3008: 2940: 2670: 2659: 2627: 1373: 748: 589: 8205: 7679: 7622: 6666: 6653: 6073:

Why, that there are so few of them and their sole power consists in sabotaging RFA. "Rump", incidentally, is a term used to describe a minority. --

5724: 5540: 5489: 5466: 2428:

Not quite. When they are not running through to chesham, instead they continue to Amersham. Also, it is not the mainline but the Metropolitan Line.

1176:

Interesting. The one you just blocked today is actually a Pfizer IP address. I'm sure his boss would love to know what he's doing on company time.--

1046: 615: 8631: 6375: 6329: 6210: 5586: 5572: 4906:

Obviously if an arbitrator asks for clarification (such as, "are there other outstanding issues") then it is appropriate to add to your statement.

4148: 4070:

It's not that significant a change from the earlier boxes either--just moving the TOC from inside the line box to a header above the line box(es).

2979: 2653: 1406: 1082: 334: 325: 299: 8616:

explained this to Tony, the first person to add these changes, in a talk page discussion a few days ago. I'll explain it to you now, too, Mack...

8447:

is (as claimed) "a direct descendant from King James I", one does have to wonder why it's not mentioned for any of the other relatives (including

7421: 7384: 7231: 6856: 6458: 6160:

is a primer on just the recent set of proposals that have been put forth, much less the often rancorous debate surrounding any proposal put forth.

4951:

I don't have the ability to create/assign cloaks. If you already have one I can add you to the list. Be advised, that channel is fairly inactive.

4919: 4910: 4077: 4034: 4022: 3630: 2551: 2539: 2530: 2469: 2453: 2444: 2432: 2423: 2410: 2400: 2388: 2379: 2362: 2349: 2337: 2325: 2311: 2229: 2196: 1485: 1476: 1467: 1125:

Hi there I have seen the request being denied. I accept it, I just want to know where should then appeal in case if this is a POV issue ? regards

997: 984: 968: 951: 423: 408: 8569: 8475: 7455: 7326: 7183: 6413: 6156:

The regulars at RfA are incapable of coming to an agreement on what system should be used in replacement of the current RfA system. A reading of

5704: 5519: 4628: 4619: 4596: 4587: 4574: 4568: 4547: 4533: 4319: 4001: 3982: 3882: 3870: 3849: 3611: 3585: 3384: 3375: 3303: 3282: 3261: 2851: 2837: 2744: 2721: 2290: 2054: 1710: 1564: 1555: 1506: 1095: 1056: 214: 8463: 8406: 8391: 8051: 8041: 8027: 7993:

been achieved and attempts to subvert that end have failed. The case has been taken to arbitration and looks like it will probably be rejected.

7979: 7957: 7948: 7813: 7803: 7289: 6924:

Sure thing. I had emailed the oversight list, but wasn't sure if you had the oversight power, or were just deleting the info. Mahalo nui loa. --

6447: 6277: 6265: 6251: 6237: 5687: 5666: 5632: 5617: 4827: 4734: 4109: 3838:

I'd do it. Take west/east as your left/right base. The "left" end of the red line is "Westmoreland," the right end is "Parker Road." Therefore,

3815: 3785: 3750: 3728: 3702: 3684: 3658: 3642: 3570:. That's all I'll do now with it. Your suggestions or ideas would help. I think something like this would be agreeable among users working on 3561: 3541: 3496: 3460: 3448: 3423: 3408: 3351: 3331: 3035: 3023: 3001: 2902: 2892: 2876: 2867: 2821: 2805: 2793: 2756: 2708: 2691: 1444: 1435: 507: 483: 458:. Most of the interactions this user has had appears to be with other accounts on the same IP. Notice the similarities between that account and 8529: 7125: 6879: 5350: 5196: 4925: 4856: 4837: 4746: 3921: 3083: 2770: 2073: 1148: 375: 337: 328: 314: 302: 293: 274: 8497: 8361: 8349: 8329: 8312: 8241: 8224: 7546: 7543: 7475: 7313: 6746: 6589: 6528: 6388: 6315: 6302: 5065: 4675: 4662: 4649: 3908: 2143: 2120: 2108: 2092: 1856: 1792: 1779: 1624: 1594: 919: 907: 898: 885: 875: 863: 854: 8580: 7659: 7645: 7585: 7573: 7556: 7526: 7499: 7329: 7033: 6847: 6133: 6115: 6102: 5513: 5406:

process with the very real need to create additional administrators and to arrest the alarming development of administrative backlogs. Best,

5388: 4896:

personal matters to attend to. I think this issue needs to be settled too. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

4876: 4709: 4336:

Well, I didn't get a screen full of white space, but what you've done now accomplished what I intended. What browser/platform are you using?

3955: 3240: 3223: 3183: 3159: 3147: 3126: 3102: 2954: 2033: 1910: 1899: 1852:

Well I was certainly checkusered very recently by David Gerard, or is that to be denied?, it seems to me you are all at it every 5 minutes? =

1609: 1542: 1289: 1270: 1254: 1234: 1222: 1197: 1185: 1167: 1129: 1117: 768: 767:

spammers (they link to in.geocities.com/medhahari) are all fairly low volume #'s -- the only Medha Hari spammer candidate i've hit so far is

519: 455: 388: 7953:

You don't get to rerun the deletion debate until you get the result you want. There was consensus to delete and the article was deleted. --

7067: 6967: 6822: 6809: 6711: 5533:

That doesn't surprise me particularly and dovetails with what I've suggested about numbers running the show. Thanks for doing the research.

5274: 5016: 5004: 4987: 4975: 4958: 4701: 4697: 1761: 1748: 1024: 557: 548: 8610: 8545: 8289: 8276: 7545:. What hope is there for an RfC that doesn't inflame matters further. I think magojuice sums up my feelings on the matter well by the way: 7263: 7005: 6993: 6983: 6940: 6928: 6919: 6632: 6609: 6508: 6225: 6157: 5446: 5436: 5423: 5413: 5369: 5326: 5310: 5293: 3058: 2176: 2162: 2012: 1997: 1983: 1969: 1950: 1933: 1887: 1843: 1829: 1815: 1685: 1669: 1660: 1647: 1638: 764: 730: 710: 682: 364: 7169: 3875:

You're most welcome. You should've seen it when I converted the entire London Underground--seemed like I made a typo every other station!

1871: 8597: 7157: 6797: 6770:

21:20, January 5, 2007 Mackensen (Talk | contribs) blocked "121.6.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (massive disruption)

6476: 5501: 4785: 4298: 609: 8191: 6955: 5070:

Ok, thanks, good to know. I'm not familiar with the more technical mark-up and I'm trying to figure it out. Also, thanks for creating

8264: 7427: 7194: 6619: 6146: 5525: 5507: 5211:

Cheers for the response, as I said, some people were querying why I blocked an IP indef, hopefully that should put their minds at rest

4945: 4612:

Yes, I've had that happen already and I've restored others. Might be best just to stop editing altogether until it gets fixed. Thanks,

1921: 829: 698: 3323:

has nothing to do with VIA's Montreal-Ottawa runs. Likewise all Montreal-Toronto runs start/end at Union Station in downtown Toronto.

8249: 7710:

so I see no reason to be concerned about that. This was linked to in badlydrawnjeff's initial statement, perhaps you missed it?

7537: 5394: 1534: 538: 7903:

Yes, and when they get it wrong, as they did with this article, you've been around long enough to know that's where DRV comes in. --

5182:

was brought to my attention; I identified the underlying IP and told NicAgent I'd block the school indefinitely if he didn't desist

8629: 7105: 7057: 4769: 4754: 3245:

It appears as though whoever made these templates thought that railroads will stay where they are for all of eternity :) Check out

2604: 2499: 2237: 1512: 3619:

and we can get feedback from others. And then, who knows it might then be possible for NYCS. I have worked some with them too. --

3414: 3214: 8809: 5215: 5123: 5107: 4117: 3051:

No, you should do what you just did–go and find the checkuser who did it. It's our fault, after all. I'll go review the request.

3045: 2330:

Okay, that should be easy to show. I thought I knew about most oddities of the Tube--apparently not! Anything else come to mind?

1425: 1414: 1010: 790: 298:

What do you suggest then, restoring the original indefinite block on the IP address? Is it significant enough to warrant that?

6815: 4654:

Er... they don't read the evidence secions before stating that no such evidence has been offered? Isn't that a little extreme??

2269:

For your good work on applying the s-rail templates to LUL articles, please accept this barnstar as a token of our gratitude. —

2097: 8556: 7143: 6291: 4416: 3076:

I would be willing to restore any versions which pre-date Argonaut's contributions, pending resolution of these other matters.

3064: 1346: 785: 6419: 2214:. In which case do you find the succession boxes feel like they're part of the article? Then again, maybe the style used in 621: 286:

Well, there's certainly wrestling-related vandalism coming from that IP (as of January 6), if that's what you wanted to know.

7707: 5788: 5153: 3270:

created these templates. Really an awesome (if not magnificently terrifying) system. You could try asking him any questions.

602: 8493:

James I, if I read Kitty's tables correctly. I'm not sure it's so notable as to need mentioning, but it appears to be true.

7859:

You're turning this into a ping-pong game. The article is dead, so it's hard to argue that the community felt otherwise. --

1867:

Oh I can answer that, apparently I was a potential risk to the project! They invent anything to get themselves off the hook

442: 7461: 7337: 6126:

Hi, I just wandered by and I realized a contradicted myself above. I have fixed it. Sorry about my inept use of English.

5254: 4330: 7375: 5903:

RFA regulars do matter), but I think what occurs at RFA is also a lot more the second option than you'd like to believe.

4446: 4064: 3433:

eachother. While most subway station articles are short, they can develop into longer articles. In those cases, such as

2714: 2701: 8452: 6885: 5607: 4461:

station article are too big, too obsessive and likely to discourage readers from continuing to the end of the article. --

4285: 250: 2933:

I'm not familiar with the matter so I'm not inclined to act. Have you asked one of the admins who deleted/protected it?

8551: 8456: 8448: 7149:

On a cursory glance, I'm also concerned about the level of hostility he's exhibiting toward Durova (see section titled

4100: 333:

I've restored the block fully. If The Showster wants to contribute, he'll have to find somewhere else to go to edit.

8756:

Templates that purport to enforce a Knowledge policy or guideline need to actually adhere to that policy or guideline.

8256:

copy/pasted the text into a file, but I did not save it and it was lost when my computer restarted overnight. Thanks.

8140:

and (where relevant) other user talk pages until such time as an RFC is created for centralized discussion on this. --

6524:

even be a good idea policy-wise to permablock anon editing from public libraries and other public internet terminals.

5251: 8780: 8211: 4235: 4231: 4225: 4221: 4217: 3860: 3434: 2182: 1499:

Yeah, that's a favored Cplot location, but we're incurring real collateral damage there. I'm cool with a soft-block.

1493: 7378: 7200:

It's not surprising that I have not responded to anything on my userpage because nothing was written or asked of me.

7050:

name; publishing one would be libelous. I'm far more concerned about the possibility that the posted name is wrong.

6218:

I always appreciate long ramblings, but I will need time to digest what you've written. Thank you very much indeed.

4457:

user page, and he did me the courtesy of replying on mine. For the record, I agree with him. These VT templates on

4027:

I suppose you could stick {{s-note|text=]}} at the top of the box (see below), but I think it's pretty clear as-is.

3898:

I'll go with congratulations, Mackensen, I am sure you will function well as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

321: 8562:

If you like; I think the matter is more pertinent to the Mediation Committee than to me; I'm just offering advice.

6295: 5840: 5565: 5356: 4279: 3320: 3195: 3016: 2985: 1035: 7706:

about that. In any case, the original deletion debate was overturned by the closing admin, voluntarily, as shown

7833: 6534: 5495: 4720: 3089: 2149: 2060: 1917:

Or do you disagree and think that anyone could reasonably suspect that Giano was to stage a sockpuppet attack? --

1379: 608:

You were in the right neighborhood, you just needed to add a new section header at the top like Prodego fixed it

394: 228: 8659:

sanction. Secondally, Mackensen said it was premature, this is because you haven't participated in any forms of

5100: 3246: 2697: 8468:

The second one's easy: different branch of the family. It's a wholly separate baronetcy. The first one is odd.

8019: 6906: 5302:, although it never would have occurred to me to make my screen-name a tribute to him, in large part because I 5236: 5147: 4690: 351: 247: 8217:

I'm much more worried about the lack of the first message than the second. Thanks for doing the decent thing.

5185: 5183: 4378: 3716: 8539: 7319: 6838:

Interestingly, your RFB attracted as much attention as the administrators noticeboard (in page hits per day)

6174: 5429:

Russell Kirk's intellect aside (as a native of Mid-Michigan I'm biased). Thanks very much for your comments.

5299: 5030: 2215: 1802: 498: 469: 173: 168: 163: 158: 153: 148: 143: 138: 133: 128: 123: 118: 113: 108: 103: 98: 93: 83: 78: 73: 3206:

I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you specify exactly which line of the box you are trying to remove? --

912:

Forgive me, I was being vague on purpose. It wasn't the best choice but my initial choice wasn't printable.

7407: 6680:

Nothing personal assumed. Hopefully we can find common ground on the issue. Best, and thanks for the note,

5463: 5286:

The second. He figured in my senior thesis and I found him to be an interesting and engaging figure. Best,

3453:

I'll need to make a minor change to Infobox Station but yes, that's quite possible. Let me fiddle with it.

2740:) mentioned something about railway-north and railway-south being switched on U6. If I remember correctly. 2737: 2516: 1357: 1301: 68: 63: 58: 53: 48: 43: 38: 33: 28: 6912:

Yes, that's what's going on. If anyone else posts a name like that please remove it ASAP and let me know.

6790: 6469: 4275:

the clerks will usually bug the arbitrators if we can't figure it out during the "motion to close" phase.

1524: 8586:

It was an edit war that I sadly got involved in tangentially. I no longer wish to be associated with it.—

7516: 7189: 5787:

would point to the successful Carnildo RFA as a triumph of the bureaucrat system, and an indication that

3233: 1329: 6521: 5177: 3107: 2994:

Only if they're coming from the same ISP and acting the same way. No need to get block-happy over this.

6572: 5375: 5261: 5243: 5080: 4871: 4636: 4304: 4247: 3965: 3938: 2964: 2611: 2583: 1740:

permission, and if David Gerrard is right that James won't care what the arguments are, then it really

1009: 669: 529: 201: 6989:

go for the time being. I hereby award you this Text-Only Barnstar... Mahalo! Keep up the good work! --

5165: 3316: 703:

Hrmm. Well, if the noticeboard is dodging it I might have to do something. Let me take a second look.

8188: 7985: 7177: 6875:

Might have solved that myself, i inputted the data into {{tl:Template:S-rail/lines}} wrong, silly me

5697: 4759: 4555: 2039: 960:

Ok, but I'm not an admin, so I can't block the IP. What do you suggest, should I just report this on

841: 448: 7227:

Lastly, while I'm offended, I guess I should be proud that you would group me as a native speaker.

5192: 3995:) in the UK, but since I realize this might be controversial, I'll leave a note at the talk page. -- 1976:

How do you know that DG shared the info? The checkuser log is viewable by all Wikimedia checkusers.

1088:

No. Generally the baronetcy doesn't get mentioned in the lead at all, because the barony trumps it.

4793: 4349: 4242:

reading some sort of meaning into the fact that Geni's remedy is putatively harsher than Yanksox'.

3196: 2843: 7046:

No, the ultimate identity of the shooter is beside the point. At the moment we can't substantiate

2662:- another request, not the one that Luna messaged you about on Feb 9 - for you to handle. Cheers, 1352: 8861: 8822: 8722: 8668: 8652: 7781:

You'll have to ask Matt Crypto, but he's declined to participate further so I doubt it matters.

7295: 6869: 6757: 6566: 5601: 5460: 4642:

I will read this. As an aside, arbitrators can only be bothered to read what's in front of them.

3475:- a copy of your template, but trying to add the next/previous below the "other" section. (using 3236:". Within this context this info is erroneous. How does one get rid of those out of "Dorval????? 2882: 2561: 2369: 2298: 1744:

a private MySpace page in disguise, and Knowledge is not in the habit of linking to such sites.

1472:

Yes, I lost my cool with them. Who wouldn't if some well-sourced information was being censored.

1396: 1154: 808:

Finally, here are edit histories, however much of it has been "pre-digested" on my user subpage:

429: 7845:

The DRV felt otherwise. Your lack of acceptance of the community's wishes is not my problem. --

5195:

for the relevant discussion, such as it was. He was later the subject of a follow-up RFCU case,

5188: 3528: 2857: 2811: 8141: 8113: 8073: 8048: 8024: 7954: 7895: 7860: 7837: 7810: 6890: 6372: 6299: 6074: 6036: 5971: 5848: 5793: 5746: 5569: 5557: 5548: 5280: 5171: 3394: 3324: 3229: 2224: 2211: 1631:

Quick note to that effect: "Giano" is considered a short, useful byword for the entire affair.

1452: 816: 480: 280: 6543: 1402:

slightly better-looking (in my opinion): feel free to revert if you think I made a mistake. --

8388: 8299: 7306:

Great minds indeed. I've dropped a note at WT:RFA; I don't see any difficulties in a merger.

7286: 6864: 6559: 6525: 4907: 4383: 4276: 4243: 3935: 3918: 3865: 2775: 2678: 2648: 2608: 2580: 1907: 1896: 1707: 1207: 1074: 612: 3694:

that this mentality would extend to a cover-up of Wikimedia Foundation's role in hiding the

3516: 2136:

These mistakes happen. I'm just grateful that the involved parties were able to talk it out.

8455:

out there) it does seem odd. Come to that, if Kitty's the second baronet, why do we have a

7481: 6960:

Libel. I've restored what I can. Please be vigilant about removing unsubstantiated claims.

6951:

Please restore the deleted talk page. What is your basis for deleting an entire talk page?

6326: 6179:

In discussion, at least some stewards have indicated an unwillingness to replace it either.

5970:

Mackensen proposes very sensibly to face down the minoriry and restore Knowledge policy. --

5476: 5159: 4882: 4462: 4395: 4353: 3972: 3574:

station articles. The infoboxes for both systems have traditionally been done the same. --

3512: 3371: 3341: 3300: 3279: 3258: 2925: 1263:

Go ahead an drop me an email with the IP, if you like (you're right, I won't answer that).

1135: 574: 565: 6384:

candidate that followed these lines, then maybe...maybe. Danny is an extreme exception. --

3524: 811: 8: 8786: 8607: 8566: 8472: 8346: 8309: 8273: 8221: 8202: 8176: 7757: 7724: 7697: 7642: 7582: 7570: 7523: 7496: 7472: 7452: 7418: 7390: 7310: 7166: 7122: 7099: 7054: 7002: 6980: 6964: 6937: 6916: 6806: 6743: 6708: 6684: 6650: 6629: 6606: 6586: 6444: 6440:

No, if you didn't know then your tone was entirely appropriate. Sorry for the confusion,

6410: 6262: 6234: 6222: 6099: 6053: 6009: 5936: 5904: 5815: 5770: 5732: 5721: 5684: 5629: 5614: 5537: 5486: 5433: 5410: 5385: 5366: 5347: 5323: 5290: 5271: 5203: 5092: 5062: 5013: 4984: 4955: 4782: 4743: 4731: 4715: 4672: 4668:

Not at all. We read the evidence section. I re-read to be sure I hadn't missed anything.

4646: 4616: 4584: 4565: 4530: 4474: 4443: 4365: 4340: 4316: 4295: 4263: 4165: 4145: 4124: 4097: 4074: 4031: 4019: 3979: 3879: 3846: 3668: 3639: 3608: 3538: 3508: 3457: 3420: 3405: 3287:

At this point, my lack of knowledge about these sorts of systems kicks in. I'm sure that

3156: 3099: 3080: 3055: 3032: 2998: 2976: 2937: 2889: 2864: 2818: 2802: 2790: 2753: 2688: 2595: 2571: 2548: 2527: 2519:), who gave the following rationale: "No third-party references affirming notability per 2466: 2441: 2420: 2397: 2376: 2346: 2334: 2308: 2193: 2173: 2159: 2140: 2117: 2089: 2070: 2051: 2009: 1994: 1980: 1966: 1947: 1930: 1926:

In my experience anyone might use sockpuppets. But then I've seen just about everything.

1884: 1840: 1826: 1812: 1789: 1758: 1682: 1657: 1635: 1621: 1591: 1552: 1503: 1464: 1432: 1370: 1267: 1231: 1219: 1194: 1164: 1145: 1092: 1053: 1021: 981: 948: 916: 895: 872: 851: 772: 752: 707: 679: 586: 545: 516: 439: 420: 405: 385: 361: 311: 290: 271: 238: 211: 17: 6998:

Let 'em all yell. Thanks very much for letting somebody know before it got out of hand.

5257:

sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

8239: 8230: 6853: 6725: 6166:

ArbCom has declared itself not so empowered as witnessed by the recently rejected RfAr.

6141: 6089: 5597: 5141: 5081: 4798: 4659: 4519: 4305: 4009: 2965: 2664: 2207: 2105: 1606: 1279:

Pesky rules! (See commented out message) I sent you an e-mail anyway lest it help you.

1114: 801: 530: 4060:

I suppose you already know that we no longer have a national single company of sorts.

687:

Thanks, and I really appreciate the quick response but what do I do? I posted at AN/I

8644: 8575: 8534: 8037: 7975: 7944: 7799: 7655: 7552: 7389: 7300: 7138: 7031: 6897: 6595: 6464: 5336: 4854: 4825: 4499: 4409: 4061: 3906: 3781: 3724: 3680: 3174: 3138: 3117: 2946: 2860:(based on the idea of Pasing as the westbound end of the system). What do you think? 2450: 2429: 2407: 2385: 2359: 2322: 2238: 2219: 1572: 1536: 1384: 1339: 1287: 1252: 1190:

Nah, I don't want to make trouble for Pfizer (not going to slit my own throat here).

1181: 994: 965: 937: 626: 494: 474: 463: 7358:

Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.

5319:, where he was my second favorite character from the army, second only to Denisov... 2355: 1529: 8718: 7271: 6819: 6794: 6764: 6752: 6733: 6674: 6455: 5000: 4971: 4916: 4834: 4625: 4593: 4544: 4514: 4429: 3997: 3892: 3855: 3571: 3207: 2731: 2640: 2510: 2203: 1561: 1403: 1068: 776: 6485:

namespace. And perhaps those who were concerned over lack of warnings weren't all

4093:, and in a fashion that does not present too much information in one place. Best, 3359: 2254: 1460:

I can, but it's the same reason that Sam Blanning and Doc glasgow are giving you.

1366:

I accept this award with great pleasure. Your kindness is much appreciated. Best,

8854: 8444: 8287: 8262: 7510: 6758: 6640: 5663: 5583: 5052: 5042: 4810: 4106: 3951: 3503: 3381: 3367: 3348: 3337: 3328: 3292: 3271: 3250: 3237: 3220: 2899: 2873: 2848: 2834: 2741: 2718: 2705: 1441: 827: 727: 695: 664: 633: 381:

Correct, but etiquette is everything in these cases. See also my response below.

6704:

Not at all; that's the outcome I expected. Thank you very much indeed. Regards,

6169:

The bureaucrats are not so empowered either, as the attempt to replace RfA with

6008:

anachronistic view that is disrespectful to the legitimate concerns of others?

3946:

Joining the chorus... May this service to the community be kind on your nerves.

751:. I've spent a number of hours going over this one. If it helps, take a look at 8813: 8708: 8622: 8604: 8563: 8469: 8343: 8306: 8270: 8218: 8199: 7754: 7721: 7694: 7639: 7579: 7567: 7520: 7493: 7469: 7449: 7415: 7307: 7163: 7119: 7094: 7051: 6999: 6977: 6961: 6934: 6913: 6876: 6803: 6740: 6705: 6681: 6647: 6626: 6603: 6583: 6441: 6407: 6219: 6096: 5718: 5681: 5626: 5611: 5534: 5483: 5430: 5407: 5382: 5363: 5344: 5320: 5287: 5268: 5200: 5089: 5059: 5010: 4981: 4952: 4779: 4740: 4728: 4669: 4643: 4613: 4581: 4562: 4527: 4471: 4440: 4362: 4337: 4313: 4292: 4260: 4162: 4142: 4094: 4071: 4028: 4016: 3976: 3876: 3843: 3831: 3636: 3605: 3535: 3520: 3454: 3417: 3402: 3288: 3267: 3153: 3096: 3077: 3052: 3029: 2995: 2973: 2934: 2886: 2861: 2815: 2799: 2787: 2750: 2685: 2592: 2568: 2545: 2524: 2520: 2463: 2438: 2417: 2394: 2373: 2343: 2331: 2305: 2190: 2170: 2156: 2137: 2114: 2086: 2079: 2067: 2048: 2006: 1991: 1977: 1963: 1944: 1927: 1881: 1837: 1823: 1809: 1786: 1755: 1679: 1654: 1632: 1618: 1588: 1549: 1500: 1461: 1429: 1421: 1367: 1264: 1228: 1216: 1191: 1161: 1142: 1089: 1050: 1018: 978: 945: 913: 892: 869: 848: 704: 676: 597: 583: 542: 513: 436: 417: 402: 382: 358: 308: 287: 268: 235: 208: 191: 7733:

deletion debate. BLP still isn't the issue though, the issue is discussion.

5246:, I offered Knowledge's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically 1990:

I ask you again: what makes you say that David Gerard shared the information?

1706:

How about, "Discussion of the Giano matter, broadly interpreted , is banned."

1587:

would appreciate any corrective that she might have to my narrative. Regards,

8754:

more important. I guess what I am looking for is a rule along the lines of,

8664: 8623: 8403: 8358: 8326: 8184: 7361:

If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

7256: 7207: 6842: 6779: 6720: 6170: 5136: 4940: 4814: 4705: 4655: 4399: 4046: 3992: 2986: 2826: 2782: 2437:

Right, I was using "main line" colloquially. Okay, I think I've got it then.

2275: 2101: 2030: 1868: 1853: 1776: 1602: 1208: 1126: 1110: 961: 904: 882: 860: 779:. That's as far as I got; I was looking at Santap when I saw the change here: 756: 502: 6818:. Since he's added unsourced info to other articles too. Thanks, anyway. – 8660: 8587: 8034: 7972: 7941: 7796: 7652: 7549: 7371:

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page

7260: 7228: 7024: 6400: 6127: 6109: 5247: 4847: 4842:

Should be fine since you set 'noautoblock' (Wernda still hasn't fixed that

4818: 4495: 4154: 4123:

Even Jibbity's username is based on this "Jibbert Mchart Macoy" character.

3899: 3778: 3721: 3677: 3413:

I've altered the box on Journal Square to denote the difference of service

3345: 3168: 3132: 3111: 3095:

Go ahead and make an actual request so that we can keep this in one place.

2916: 2130: 1453: 1334: 1280: 1245: 1178: 566: 489: 459: 261: 7114:

Indeed, at least two different names were removed, and the current one is

5935:

P.S. My apologies to Mackensen, for continuing this debate in his space.

3991:

I had thought of there being a template for all the major operators (e.g.

8494: 7613:

case? This is extremely disconcerting, even if you weren't on Arbcom. --

7064: 6990: 6952: 6925: 6832: 6696: 6357:

framework that reliably produces good administrators at a realistic rate.

4994: 4965: 4803: 3363: 3028:

Indeed. It's only a problem when it interferes with the auto-archiving...

2727: 2506: 1745: 1063:

Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baronet, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

554: 488:

Umm looks like the user was building up a walled-garden of sorts. Hmm ---

7077: 3746:

can't see that at needless fluff, I'm sorry I can't help you further. --

3152:

Sub-page would be better, so we can include last night's check as well.

2393:

Not at all, it's my fault for mixing up the details in the first place!

2047:

That's fine, I think things are quiet on the Rms front (knock on wood).

307:

I guess I really don't understand why it was lifted in the first place.

8282: 8257: 7506: 6616: 6385: 6312: 6274: 6248: 6163:

No other group at Knowledge is capable and/or willing to supplant RfA.

5443: 5420: 5307: 4421: 3947: 1918: 1666: 1644: 1560:

Maybe there should be a central place to bring these type of requests?

824: 724: 692: 7162:

I wouldn't think that we have to remind participants to behave. Sigh.

5135:

Neither, as with most checkuser requests. Activity similar to that of

4326:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

3550:- it shows just one line but could show multiple lines and service. -- 3380:

My appologies, I guess I havent been keeping up with the latest news.

2781:

It's a possibility, but we'd need to have that concept defined in the

2535:

Would you please undelete it and I will attempt to remedy the issue? -

689:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Bharatanatyam

7154: 6786: 5843:

and attempts to impose a veto on good adminship candidates. That is

627: 5662:

not?) What I don't support is empowering you in the current system.

4931:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

4490: 2019:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

755:. I've worked my way through the list (from the heaviest editors of 246:

Okay, thanks. Turned it into a soft block again for the time being.

8180: 7433:

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

6550: 5306:

have difficulty remembering his correct spelling! :) Best wishes,

4766: 4592:

So noted in the lists of arbitrators in the pending cases. Thanks,

3065: 2523:". I deleted the article as a procedural matter in early December. 2270: 1109:

Never mind, Dmcdevit already took care of it. Sorry to bother you.

180: 6184:

This leaves just one person with the power to supplant RfA; Jimbo.

4161:

desysoped for it, but noteworthy all the same). I'll hunt around.

2462:

wondering about that. Yes, that's an easy change to make as well.

2304:

Yes, I swapped the terminal types. It should reflect reality now.

553:

As long as you and your Peerage project are okay with it, so am I.

196: 3534:

to convey the difference in service. Still at the bottom though.

2372:, you can see the note about continuation to Oval at peak times. 4361:

That's really weird. I'm running Opera on XP and it looks fine.

3249:

for how far this kingdom extends! I'm looking into it... ack...

1314: 267:

Yes, I've read it and passed it on to the proper folks. Thanks,

6495:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me

1307: 8850:

Quick question though, which policy are you talking about for

8772: 6035:

I know this because only the small rump believes otherwise. --

4606:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop

640: 8136:

I'm going to take my further responses in this discussion to

7984:

I think Mackensen has already adequately covered the various

4700:, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section 3675:

itself, not for discussion of who edited it six months ago.--

647: 4696:

And Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment.

7967:

have to run the discussions again untill you get the rsult

6554: 3695: 2917: 7063:

worse than other edits eaten by random computer glitches.

1047:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes

7438:

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

7118:

of them. I'm feeling pretty good about that now. Thanks,

6095:

Thank you very much indeed for making that clear. Yours,

5088:

So much for that experiment. Yes, re-block indefinitely.

2856:

No, I think you've got a point. I've implemented this at

8018:

Suggestions that Jeff or whoever take their concerns to

7133:

Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan

6793:

fact tags I tagged on them. Don't you love hypocrisy? –

6298:

seems to be a lot healthier than this time last week. --

6173:

attempted by bureaucrats Linuxbeak and Ilyanep so found

5847:

what consensus is about. Consensus isn't about votes. --

5298:

Interestingly enough, I had a similar relationship with

4867:

Image copyright problem with Image:Prussiaflag small.jpg

2881:

While I've got you, I'm thinking about adding boxes for

1548:

I'm not really here either, but I'll take a quick look.

1420:

Sure. I've undeleted it and listed it for deletion (per

7278:

Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Raw data

2704:

where the final destinations of the U6 seems switched.

1519:

Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

7383:

Also please review this section of the evidence page:

5038:

That's the purpose. It's part of the backbone for the

4291:

Probably worth doing. Just add your name to the list.

6518:

There isn't, however, an obvious account behind these

2749:

Yes, I accidentally swapped the two. It's fixed now.

8198:

You're welcome. I could hardly have done otherwise.

5582:

in which you are part of the small tail, of course.

5568:, where a very small tail wags this very big dog. -- 3719:

helped to further improve the article's Talk page.--

2713:

That coincides with a direction change of the U3 at

8487:

John Arbuthnot of Whitehill & Toddlehills-: -->

8451:). While I'm not a rapid anti-Arbuthnot (there are 5745:, but whatever it is, it isn't Knowledge policy. -- 4486:

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

2066:Lifted. He got caught in one of many Cplot blocks. 868:I'm not willing to discuss this further in public. 8812:would be removed immediately by admins, correct? 4135:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/CBDrunkerson 3854:Hey thanks for having my back on all these edits! 3165:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/CBDrunkerson 2638:. Thought another section might be overkill. ;) – 2636:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel 1045:Well, the Manual of Style, for a start. See here: 8639:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff 7443:Involved administrators and probation enforcement 2660:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joehazelton 2628:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joehazelton 2505:It was proposed for deletion in late November by 2024:When you have a bit of time, please look at this? 1215:Heh, that's pretty funny. Yes, I'll take a look. 847:Probably. For the moment, it's a necessary evil. 749:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar 371:Are you still active with Trivia Cleanup project? 357:Yeah, I can't even face it tonight. It's a mess. 6211:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Nomination data 8750:But templates that purport to dictate a policy 7184:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar 5705:Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen 5520:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff 1601:Thankyou - my sympathies for your toothache. -- 8149:You're better off keeping them to yourself. -- 6789:yet introducing their own unsourced info, and 6176:; the resulting revolt was loud and rancorous. 5197:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/NicAgent 5058:templates that generate the succession boxes. 4936:The Quaer beast article has been deleted again 4817:. And no, requested blocks are not preformed. 793:(Medha Hari socks probably saved that article) 8522:Could you unprotect Cowboy Rocco's talk page? 8486:Robert Arbuthnot, Sr., of Haddo-Rattray-: --> 8485:Robert Arbuthnot, Jr., of Haddo-Rattray-: --> 7217:everything. You and your buddies try to get 5514:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 4510:Another present for you, courtesy of Jpgordon 2885:. Do you know if the three lines have names? 1730:from my point of view, but it's not the same 1726:behavior cannot be examined." It's the same 1061:Thanks. Should B-P's article then open with: 786:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Spam#Bharatanatyam 771:. I did find a couple of Kalakendra spammers 456:Knowledge:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117 8721:, they may be able to mediate your dispute. 8398:Yeah and I'm about to do my own great uncle 6509:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Otheus 6290:If you look at the unexpected result of the 6158:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Reform 5315:Ah, Kutuzov! What I know of him I know from 4686:Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbitration Workshop Page 1104:Fixing sock puppeteering by more of the same 7023:possible. Then again, it is a talk page... 5502:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 658:List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama 222:List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama 8492:Annabella Stuart, Countess of Huntly-: --> 8459:? There's something weird going on here - 8229:Cool beans, I'm glad we're all sorted out 6247:questions to ask, not one of the first. -- 5526:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2 5508:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 4580:Yes, we're recused from all active cases. 3811:basic principle of a logical argument. -- 2246:Thank you for your work on the Tube pages. 8402:in the meantime lets sort this one first 7075: 6563:was updated with a fact from the article 6380:No, we don't. If there were an RfA for a 5250:); sadly, this was basically ignored and 4963:Have a cloak allready, wikipedia/AKMask - 2252: 539:Olave Baden-Powell, Baroness Baden-Powell 4489: 2100:- would you unblock the accounts too? -- 1356: 763:). I believe the crew I think of as the 179: 8321:Mackensen be serious - I am serious - " 7241:is basically saying, "if Komdori was a 4765:Thanks a bunch! That really helped. -- 4575:ArbCom - Participation in pending cases 2276: 791:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Medha Hari 537:Well, the full, correct title would be 14: 8789:. When in doubt, discuss first on the 8491:Sir James Gordon of Letterfourie-: --> 5381:I don't think it ever mentioned that. 4926:Thank you, the 1st edit is my birthday 2771:WikiProject Military History elections 1643:Is it a "No" to the request I made? -- 782:You may want to take a look at these: 747:I saw you declined, then reconsidered 376:Warning messages for established users 59:/Archive (December 2005–February 2006) 39:/Archive (November 2004–February 2005) 8581:Just wanted to make sure you saw this 8072:resolution process. Please do so. -- 7448:Yes, that helps a good deal. Thanks, 4877:Betacommand arbitration clarification 1957:That's an interesting point since DG 1543:Checkuser block unblock review needed 1227:Yes, that's him. Block and be merry. 7338:Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral 6406:Sigh indeed. I'll go look in a bit. 5596:towards an interesting possibility. 4888: 3698:evidence from its own community. -- 2831:Donnersberger Brücke railway station 2717:which could possibly be the reason. 723:Thanks for your help and the fix. -- 84:/Archive (October 2006–January 2007) 54:/Archive (August 2005–December 2005) 8488:Robert Arbuthnot of Whitehill-: --> 8484:George Arbuthnot of Elderslie-: --> 5547:Jeff got 75% ? Gosh, that's bad. -- 4992:Still telling me I need an invite - 3501:I've changed Journal Square to use 3131:That is unless you want a subpage.— 3006:So in short, ignore the ranting? -- 1031:No Prob. Question on something else 881:reckless banning of other users. -- 64:/Archive (February 2006–April 2006) 34:/Archive (April 2004–November 2004) 23: 8457:Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet 7428:McConn on revert parol for a year? 7350:Do we have consensus on that page? 7195:regarding sockpuppets a while back 6147:Your RfB and RfA reform in general 4946:#wikipedia-en-functionaries access 3975:with a specialized version, then? 3546:Here's what I figured out so far: 1313: 1306: 646: 639: 99:/Archive (August 2007–January 2008 24: 8906: 8269:Unfortunately I lack such a log. 8250:Re: access to the -admins channel 7086:The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar 6271:User:Durin/What is wrong with RfA 6194:Run an RfB at an appropriate time 5741:Wikipedian. I'm not saying it's 5395:Scrutiny for a statement of yours 3934:Congratulations from me as well. 3435:World Trade Center (PATH station) 2715:Münchner Freiheit (Munich U-Bahn) 2702:Münchner Freiheit (Munich U-Bahn) 2658:Lucky you. Jpgordon has deferred 2342:Both corrections have been made. 114:/Archive (January 2009–June 2009) 109:/Archive (June 2008–January 2009) 104:/Archive (January 2008–June 2008) 89:/Archive (January 2007–June 2007) 79:/Archive (July 2006–October 2006) 44:/Archive (February 2005–May 2005) 29:/Archive (August 2003–April 2004) 8771: 8483:William Reierson Arbuthnot-: --> 7720:the very center of the problem. 7344:Is the information well sourced? 7076: 6775:I'm loving this, they're adding 6542: 4755:Yet more Kate McAuliffe accounts 4561:There has been discussion, yes. 4394: 3108:WP:RFCU#Powerrangerbuster et al. 2603:Thank you. I've posted about it 2500:Boston Archdiocesan Choir School 2253: 1513:advice request - Borderline RFCU 435:You don't appear to be blocked. 324:, so that's why it was lifted. 174:/Archive (April 2022–April 2023) 169:/Archive (April 2021–April 2022) 164:/Archive (April 2020–April 2021) 159:/Archive (April 2019–April 2020) 154:/Archive (April 2018–April 2019) 149:/Archive (April 2017–April 2018) 144:/Archive (April 2016–April 2017) 139:/Archive (April 2015–April 2016) 134:/Archive (April 2014–April 2015) 129:/Archive (April 2013–April 2014) 124:/Archive (April 2011–April 2013) 94:/Archive (June 2007–August 2007) 8482:Kenneth Wyndham Arbuthnot-: --> 8443:Just a passing thought, but if 5242:Hi, Mario. On the talk page of 5193:User talk:NicAgent#A few lapses 4118:You may want to look at this... 3336:I posted the same message with 3046:Checkuser block of 129.7.35.202 1424:). Please feel free to comment 977:That's as good a place as any. 119:/Archive (June 2009–April 2011) 49:/Archive (May 2005–August 2005) 8557:discuss case on your talk page 8490:John Gordon of Chapelton-: --> 8480:Sir William, 2nd Baronet-: --> 7144:Ideogram-CG evidence talk page 6933:Yep, thanks for the heads-up. 6816:You know, somehow I doubt that 5267:I have clarified my response. 4439:with such belligerence. Best, 2354:Morden peak times really, see 582:I've got it on my watch list. 69:/Archive (April 2006–May 2006) 13: 1: 8400:Grand Admiral di Testosterone 5300:Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov 4597:02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4588:02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4569:01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4320:20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 4299:19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 4169:23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 4149:02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 4128:16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 4110:16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 4101:15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 4078:23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4065:23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4035:23:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4023:23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 4002:14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3983:14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3956:01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3942:00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3922:00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3909:23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3883:19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3871:19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3850:18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3840:Template:S-line/DART left/Red 3816:05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3786:05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3751:05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3729:05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3703:05:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3685:05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3659:21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3643:21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3631:21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3612:21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3586:20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3562:20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3542:20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3497:20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3461:20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3449:19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3424:19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3409:19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3385:01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3376:01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3352:01:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3332:01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3304:02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3283:02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3262:01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3241:01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3224:02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 3184:20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3160:20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3148:20:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3127:20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3103:20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3084:15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3059:20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3036:02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3024:02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3002:02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2980:13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 2955:01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 2941:20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 2929:20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 2903:08:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2893:23:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2877:23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2868:22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2852:22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2838:22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2822:20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2806:20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2794:20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2757:02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2745:00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2722:00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2709:00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2692:00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2671:06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2654:04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2552:13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2540:13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2216:Exchange Place (PATH station) 812:Bharatanatyam article history 603:CheckUser procedure questions 74:/Archive (May 2006–July 2006) 7462:Amtrak rail succession boxes 7347:Is the information relevant? 4348:IE7 (IE6 does the same). . 4331:Positioning of WCML template 4201:SlimVirgin protects the page 4181:SlimVirgin protects the page 3215:01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2698:Implerstraße (Munich U-Bahn) 2615:10:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 2599:00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2587:00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2575:00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2531:21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 2470:17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2454:16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2445:16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2433:16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2424:16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2411:16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2401:16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2389:16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2384:Okay. Sorry for the mix up. 2380:15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2363:15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2350:15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2338:15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2326:15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2312:15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2291:10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 2230:05:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 2197:01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 2177:17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2163:17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2144:16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2121:16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2109:16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2093:15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2074:12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2055:02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2034:18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2013:15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1998:15:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1984:15:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1970:15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1951:14:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1934:14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1922:14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1911:22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1900:22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1888:22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1872:21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1857:21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1844:20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1830:20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1816:20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1793:20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1780:20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1762:12:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1749:12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1711:16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1686:16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1670:16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1661:14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1648:14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1639:11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1625:23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1610:18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1595:17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1565:02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1556:00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1507:18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 1486:18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 1477:18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 1468:17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 1445:03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 1436:14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 1407:01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 1374:01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 1347:23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1290:23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1271:22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1255:22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1235:22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1223:22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1198:21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 1186:21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 1168:22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1149:19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1130:11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1118:08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 1096:22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 1083:22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 1057:20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 1025:19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 998:18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 985:18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 969:18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 952:18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 920:03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 908:02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 899:02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 886:02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 876:02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 864:02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 855:02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 830:22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 731:22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 711:21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 699:20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 683:20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 616:04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 590:16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 578:16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 573:Never mind, already done. -- 558:15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 549:15:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 520:21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 508:20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 484:20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 207:Fun! Looks like you got it. 7: 8821:Take this to my talk page. 8481:Sir John, 1st Baronet-: --> 7377:. Abusively and repeatedly 6886:VnTruth Arbitration Request 6582:Wonderful, thanks so much! 6420:Comment at Danny's RFA talk 5789:Requests for administration 5189:User talk:NicAgent#Blockage 4286:Finnish railway stations... 3234:Fallowfield railway station 2924:please let me know. thanks 798:You may also want to skim: 622:need to move IP's to WP:OP? 443:23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 424:13:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 409:13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 389:13:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 365:04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 338:01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 329:23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 315:23:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 303:23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 294:23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 275:04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 254:23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 242:23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 215:01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 10: 8911: 8552:Badlydrawnjeff arbitration 7988:. As I've said before, I 7414:would be more consistent. 7374:however this was deleted: 7314:13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 7290:00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 7264:18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 7232:14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 7170:21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7158:20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7126:14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7106:13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7068:04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7058:00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7034:01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 7006:22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6994:22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6984:21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6968:21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6956:21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6941:21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6929:21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6920:21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6901:16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 6880:19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 6857:18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 6848:10:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 6823:12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 6810:12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 6798:11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 6747:10:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 6728:02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 6712:22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 6700:22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 6688:23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6667:21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6654:20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6646:Then don't do that again. 6633:17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6620:17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6610:16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6590:16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6529:16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6459:02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 6448:02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 6389:13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6376:07:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6330:01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6316:01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 6303:13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 6134:20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 5275:11:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 5223:16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 5207:16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 5131:15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 5115:14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 5096:14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 4920:18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 4911:18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 4857:01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 4838:01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 4828:01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 4786:14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 4770:14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 4747:13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 4735:13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 4710:05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 4676:15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 4663:15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 4650:10:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 4629:19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 4620:19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 4478:13:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 4466:12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 3358:Please have a look at the 2263:The Working Man's Barnstar 1160:If he does it again, yes. 817:Talk:Bharatanatyam history 8783:on the English Knowledge. 8323:together we can beat this 8212:RE: Blocked and unblocked 7082: 6573:"Did you know?" talk page 6477:Sam Vimes' 2nd nomination 6414:14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6278:17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6266:17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6252:17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6238:16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6226:14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6116:01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6103:23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 6078:09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6057:09:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6040:09:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 6013:08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5975:08:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5940:06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5908:06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5852:05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5819:04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5797:04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5774:03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5750:02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5725:23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 5688:02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5667:01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5633:13:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 5618:13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 5587:01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 5573:08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 5552:08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 5541:22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5504:promoted at 61.7% support 5490:21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5467:23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 5447:19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5437:19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5424:19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5414:19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5389:16:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5370:05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5351:02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5327:03:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5311:03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5294:00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5066:18:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 5017:17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 5005:17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 4988:17:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 4976:17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 4959:16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 4548:03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 4534:03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 4504:01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 4447:23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 4428: 4415: 4408: 4393: 4369:17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 4357:17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 4344:13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 4280:14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 4267:13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 4251:12:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 4141:Go ahead and archive it. 4105:makes sense now. Thanks. 4044: 3971:Do you intend to replace 3715:Please explain to me how 3465:I am playing around with 2259: 2183:clear:both in {{s-start}} 1494:Since I caught you online 823:I hope this is useful. -- 8885:17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 8846:17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 8817:17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 8746:17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 8712:17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 8692:17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 8648:18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 8611:22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 8598:22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 8570:19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 8546:23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 8498:23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8476:22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8464:22:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8407:20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8392:20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8362:20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8350:19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8330:19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8313:18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8290:15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8277:15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8265:15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8242:02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8225:02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 8206:17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 8192:01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 8159:12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8145:12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8138:User talk:Badlydrawnjeff 8132:12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8117:12:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8092:11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8077:11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8067:11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8052:11:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8042:04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 8028:04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7980:04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7958:04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7949:04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7923:04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7913:04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7899:04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7889:04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7879:04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7864:04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7855:04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7841:03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7828:03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7814:03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7804:03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7786:02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7761:02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7748:02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7738:02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7728:02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7715:02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7701:01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7680:01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7660:03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7646:01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7623:03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7586:01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7574:01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7557:01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7527:01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7500:01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 7476:17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 7456:01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 5357:Now, about the RfB... :) 5072:Template:Rail text color 4350:Nuneaton railway station 4206:Geni unprotects the page 4186:Geni unprotects the page 4015:I'm well aware of that. 3568:User:AudeVivere/Sandbox3 3548:User:AudeVivere/Sandbox3 3197:Gare Centrale (Montreal) 2810:I've tested the idea at 1141:That sounds good to me. 234:Go ahead and remove it. 8779:This page documents an 8449:Kittybrewster's autobio 8445:Kittybrewster's brother 8281:Ok, thanks anyways. :) 7422:11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 7330:11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 6567:Charles Frederick Field 6535:Charles Frederick Field 5496:A bit of RFA background 4721:WMATA station templates 4211:Geni reverts SlimVirgin 4196:SlimVirgin reverts Geni 4191:Geni reverts SlimVirgin 4176:SlimVirgin reverts Cyde 3090:Powerrangerbuster et al 2579:Thanks. It's sent. :-) 2370:Kennington tube station 2150:Access to admin channel 2061:Another checkuser block 1380:Deferrance of RFCU case 759:on downwards as far as 395:Your comments on my RFA 229:Cplot collateral damage 8663:, why don't you try a 6907:Do you have oversight? 6296:Requests for adminship 5841:Requests for adminship 5566:Requests for adminship 5237:Help with sockpupettry 4885:flip-flopping question 4691:Re: Starwood RfAr case 4506: 4259:No objection from me. 3917:What are you smoking? 3230:Aldershot (GO station) 2829:defines it only until 2212:Grand Central Terminal 1676: 1362: 1318: 1311: 993:Thanks for your help. 660:nominated for deletion 651: 644: 352:Clowning around on IPs 185: 8175:This is a song about 7834:Articles for deletion 7492:take a stand on BLP. 7320:That sockpuppet issue 6292:Danny's run for admin 6257:opinions of what RFA 6201:Resign from adminship 5244:Fellowship of Friends 5032:Template:SBB stations 4778:You're most welcome. 4493: 2241:Coordinator Elections 1675: 1530:Constance Holland AfD 1415:deletion of "Clc bio" 1360: 1317: 1310: 650: 643: 183: 8489:Beatrix Gordon-: --> 8020:Requests for comment 7408:Back to Metropolitan 3973:Template:UK stations 3470:Infobox_PATH_station 3291:would know, though. 2858:München Hauptbahnhof 2812:München Hauptbahnhof 1737:there is no recourse 1322:Happy Knowledge Day! 1302:Happy Knowledge Day! 8808:This distortion of 8719:mediation committee 8665:request for comment 8453:far worse offenders 7190:checkuser NisarKand 5482:Responded already. 4883:WP:RFAR#Betacommand 4698:Here's the original 4379:Jimbo's whereabouts 3344:in connection with 3327:is beyond Toronto. 2726:I do remember that 773:User:61.247.253.102 761:User:67.191.164.199 753:User:A. B./Sandbox2 18:User talk:Mackensen 8661:dispute resolution 8630:TfD nomination of 8177:Alice's Restaurant 7753:arbitration page. 7688:I'm sorry, but it 7603:occur, but do not 7151:Durova's prejudice 5461:Christopher Parham 5376:Missing Something? 5262:Inconclusive RFCU? 5082:User:64.251.53.130 5009:Hrmm, that's odd. 4872:Richthofen (again) 4809:I assume you mean 4637:InShaneee evidence 4507: 4404:Following station 4391:Preceding station 4306:User talk:Jkammert 3966:WikiProject Trains 3416:. Is this better? 3360:VIA Rail schedules 2966:Copper(II) sulfate 2208:Paddington station 2085:Yes, I've got it. 1363: 1324: 1319: 1312: 1011:Great Edit Summary 995:-- Vision Thing -- 966:-- Vision Thing -- 802:Talk:Bharatanatyam 670:Declined checkuser 654: 652: 645: 531:Olave Baden-Powell 202:Userpage vandalism 186: 8799: 8798: 8157: 8130: 8090: 8065: 8039: 7977: 7946: 7911: 7877: 7853: 7826: 7801: 7657: 7621: 7554: 7178:Checkuser request 7111: 7110: 6579: 6578: 6470:Sjakkalle's input 5942: 5698:On radical change 5516:promoted at 71.6% 5510:promoted at 69.4% 5213:Ryanpostlethwaite 5121:Ryanpostlethwaite 5105:Ryanpostlethwaite 5074:, it's very cool. 5002: 4973: 4903: 4902: 4760:Assistance wanted 4556:Arbitration clerk 4435: 4434: 4424: 4055: 4054: 3954: 3657: 3629: 3584: 3560: 3495: 3447: 3070:Haunted Hollywood 2989:RunedChozo thread 2296: 2295: 2041:User:65.88.88.214 1537:Constance Holland 1525:Newyorkbrad's RfA 1320: 842:indefinite blocks 637: 506: 8902: 8881: 8879: 8877: 8875: 8873: 8859: 8853: 8842: 8840: 8838: 8836: 8834: 8775: 8768: 8767: 8742: 8740: 8738: 8736: 8734: 8688: 8686: 8684: 8682: 8680: 8595: 8590: 8542: 8537: 8532: 8237: 8236: 8153: 8126: 8086: 8061: 8038: 7986:deletion reviews 7976: 7945: 7920:FrozenPurpleCube 7907: 7886:FrozenPurpleCube 7873: 7849: 7822: 7800: 7783:FrozenPurpleCube 7745:FrozenPurpleCube 7735:FrozenPurpleCube 7712:FrozenPurpleCube 7677:FrozenPurpleCube 7656: 7617: 7553: 7404: 7403: 7399: 7104: 7080: 7073: 7072: 7029: 6845: 6784: 6778: 6723: 6546: 6539: 6538: 6324: 6207:Focus my efforts 5934: 5703:Comment made at 5181: 5154:deleted contribs 5057: 5051: 5047: 5041: 4999: 4997: 4970: 4968: 4889: 4852: 4823: 4794:IRC RFCU channel 4420: 4398: 4388: 4387: 4040: 4039: 3950: 3904: 3868: 3863: 3858: 3651: 3623: 3578: 3572:Washington Metro 3554: 3533: 3532: 3489: 3484: 3478: 3474: 3468: 3441: 3298: 3295: 3277: 3274: 3256: 3253: 3232:" & "toward 3212: 3180: 3177: 3171: 3144: 3141: 3135: 3123: 3120: 3114: 3019: 3011: 2952: 2949: 2696:Just looking at 2667: 2652: 2645: 2591:And forwarded... 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2273: 2257: 2250: 2249: 2204:Waterloo station 1803:Checkuser issues 1535:AfD Nomination: 1401: 1395: 1342: 1337: 1332: 1285: 1250: 1081: 777:User:Sudhakar ks 492: 478: 8910: 8909: 8905: 8904: 8903: 8901: 8900: 8899: 8871: 8869: 8867: 8865: 8863: 8857: 8851: 8832: 8830: 8828: 8826: 8824: 8781:official policy 8732: 8730: 8728: 8726: 8724: 8678: 8676: 8674: 8672: 8670: 8655: 8653:Template:Trivia 8650: 8642: 8635: 8627: 8593: 8588: 8583: 8578: 8559: 8554: 8540: 8535: 8530: 8524: 8302: 8252: 8232: 8231: 8214: 7484: 7464: 7445: 7440: 7435: 7430: 7410: 7405: 7401: 7397: 7395: 7394: 7341: 7336:Please advise: 7322: 7303: 7298: 7296:Hello Mackensen 7274: 7197: 7192: 7187: 7180: 7146: 7141: 7136: 7093: 7025: 6909: 6893: 6888: 6872: 6870:s-rail question 6867: 6843: 6835: 6782: 6776: 6767: 6762: 6759:User:Burntsauce 6755: 6736: 6721: 6677: 6643: 6598: 6537: 6512: 6472: 6467: 6422: 6403: 6322: 6149: 6144: 6092: 5700: 5560: 5528:failed at 77.1% 5522:failed at 75.7% 5498: 5479: 5397: 5378: 5359: 5339: 5283: 5264: 5239: 5139: 5085: 5055: 5049: 5045: 5039: 5035: 4995: 4966: 4948: 4943: 4938: 4933: 4928: 4887: 4879: 4874: 4869: 4848: 4819: 4806: 4801: 4796: 4762: 4757: 4723: 4718: 4693: 4688: 4639: 4609: 4577: 4558: 4522: 4517: 4512: 4488: 4463:Concrete Cowboy 4453:I responded on 4386: 4381: 4354:Concrete Cowboy 4333: 4328: 4309: 4288: 4157: 4138: 4120: 4012: 3968: 3900: 3895: 3866: 3861: 3856: 3834: 3671: 3566:Two lines now: 3506: 3504:Template:S-note 3502: 3482: 3476: 3472: 3466: 3397: 3296: 3293: 3275: 3272: 3254: 3251: 3208: 3203: 3200: 3178: 3175: 3169: 3142: 3139: 3133: 3121: 3118: 3112: 3092: 3073: 3048: 3017: 3009: 2991: 2969: 2950: 2947: 2921: 2778: 2773: 2684:Great, thanks! 2681: 2665: 2641: 2639: 2631: 2564: 2562:Are you online? 2502: 2301: 2299:West India Quay 2285: 2281: 2277: 2271: 2248: 2243: 2228: 2185: 2152: 2133: 2113:Done and done. 2082: 2063: 2044: 2026: 2021: 1805: 1575: 1545: 1540: 1532: 1527: 1522: 1515: 1496: 1457: 1417: 1399: 1393: 1387: 1382: 1355: 1350: 1349: 1340: 1335: 1330: 1304: 1281: 1246: 1212: 1157: 1155:Kalamazoo again 1138: 1106: 1066: 1042: 1036:B-P as Baronet 1033: 1014: 940: 844: 672: 667: 662: 653: 636: 631: 624: 605: 600: 570: 534: 476: 451: 449:Unblock request 432: 430:Unblock request 397: 378: 373: 354: 283: 264: 231: 226: 204: 199: 194: 178: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8908: 8898: 8897: 8896: 8895: 8894: 8893: 8892: 8891: 8890: 8889: 8888: 8887: 8810:the bio policy 8797: 8796: 8794: 8776: 8766: 8765: 8764: 8763: 8762: 8761: 8760: 8759: 8701: 8700: 8699: 8698: 8654: 8651: 8643: 8641: 8636: 8634: 8632:Template:S-ptd 8628: 8626: 8621: 8620: 8619: 8618: 8617: 8600: 8582: 8579: 8577: 8574: 8573: 8572: 8558: 8555: 8553: 8550: 8549: 8548: 8523: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8517: 8516: 8515: 8514: 8513: 8512: 8511: 8510: 8509: 8508: 8507: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8478: 8424: 8423: 8422: 8421: 8420: 8419: 8418: 8417: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8412: 8411: 8410: 8409: 8373: 8372: 8371: 8370: 8369: 8368: 8367: 8366: 8365: 8364: 8335: 8334: 8333: 8332: 8316: 8315: 8301: 8298: 8297: 8296: 8295: 8294: 8293: 8292: 8251: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8213: 8210: 8209: 8208: 8195: 8194: 8172: 8171: 8170: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8164: 8163: 8162: 8161: 8151:badlydrawnjeff 8124:badlydrawnjeff 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8101: 8100: 8099: 8098: 8097: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8084:badlydrawnjeff 8059:badlydrawnjeff 8023:discuss it. -- 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7998: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7933: 7932: 7931: 7930: 7929: 7928: 7927: 7926: 7925: 7915: 7905:badlydrawnjeff 7881: 7871:badlydrawnjeff 7847:badlydrawnjeff 7820:badlydrawnjeff 7791: 7790: 7789: 7788: 7776: 7775: 7774: 7773: 7772: 7771: 7770: 7769: 7768: 7767: 7766: 7765: 7764: 7763: 7683: 7682: 7671: 7670: 7669: 7668: 7667: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7662: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7615:badlydrawnjeff 7593: 7592: 7591: 7590: 7589: 7588: 7576: 7530: 7529: 7502: 7483: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7463: 7460: 7459: 7458: 7444: 7441: 7439: 7436: 7434: 7431: 7429: 7426: 7425: 7424: 7409: 7406: 7396:Question": --> 7393: 7388: 7387: 7386: 7381: 7368: 7367: 7363: 7362: 7359: 7356: 7352: 7351: 7348: 7345: 7340: 7334: 7333: 7332: 7321: 7318: 7317: 7316: 7302: 7299: 7297: 7294: 7293: 7292: 7281: 7280: 7273: 7270: 7269: 7268: 7267: 7266: 7249: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7235: 7234: 7224: 7223: 7213: 7212: 7202: 7201: 7196: 7193: 7191: 7188: 7186: 7181: 7179: 7176: 7175: 7174: 7173: 7172: 7145: 7142: 7140: 7137: 7135: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7109: 7108: 7089: 7088: 7083: 7081: 7071: 7070: 7060: 7043: 7042: 7041: 7040: 7039: 7038: 7037: 7036: 7013: 7012: 7011: 7010: 7009: 7008: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6944: 6943: 6908: 6905: 6904: 6903: 6892: 6891:Can I, please? 6889: 6887: 6884: 6883: 6882: 6871: 6868: 6866: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6834: 6831: 6830: 6829: 6828: 6827: 6826: 6825: 6772: 6771: 6766: 6763: 6761: 6756: 6754: 6751: 6750: 6749: 6735: 6732: 6731: 6730: 6716: 6715: 6714: 6691: 6690: 6676: 6673: 6672: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6664:24.235.229.208 6657: 6656: 6642: 6639: 6638: 6637: 6636: 6635: 6612: 6597: 6594: 6593: 6592: 6577: 6576: 6547: 6536: 6533: 6532: 6531: 6511: 6506: 6505: 6504: 6498:the candidate 6491: 6471: 6468: 6466: 6463: 6462: 6461: 6451: 6450: 6437: 6436: 6429: 6421: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6402: 6399: 6398: 6397: 6396: 6395: 6394: 6393: 6392: 6391: 6363: 6362: 6361: 6360: 6359: 6358: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6332: 6318: 6306: 6305: 6287: 6286: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6263:Dragons flight 6235:Dragons flight 6229: 6228: 6215: 6214: 6204: 6198: 6190: 6189: 6185: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6177: 6167: 6161: 6154: 6148: 6145: 6143: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6118: 6091: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6054:Dragons flight 6045: 6044: 6043: 6042: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6010:Dragons flight 5990: 5989: 5988: 5987: 5986: 5985: 5984: 5983: 5982: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5978: 5977: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5937:Dragons flight 5921: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5905:Dragons flight 5889: 5888: 5887: 5886: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5878: 5863: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5857: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5816:Dragons flight 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5779: 5778: 5777: 5776: 5771:Dragons flight 5763: 5762: 5761: 5760: 5753: 5752: 5737: 5736: 5733:Dragons flight 5731:With respect, 5728: 5727: 5714: 5713: 5708: 5707: 5699: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5656: 5655: 5654: 5653: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5636: 5635: 5621: 5620: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5576: 5575: 5559: 5558:Bureaucratting 5556: 5555: 5554: 5544: 5543: 5530: 5529: 5523: 5517: 5511: 5505: 5497: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5478: 5475: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5396: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5377: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5358: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5338: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5282: 5281:Minor Question 5279: 5278: 5277: 5263: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5238: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5084: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5034: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 4947: 4944: 4942: 4939: 4937: 4934: 4932: 4929: 4927: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4913: 4901: 4900: 4897: 4893: 4886: 4880: 4878: 4875: 4873: 4870: 4868: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4845: 4805: 4802: 4800: 4797: 4795: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4773: 4772: 4761: 4758: 4756: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4722: 4719: 4717: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4692: 4689: 4687: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4638: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4608: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4576: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4557: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4537: 4536: 4521: 4518: 4516: 4513: 4511: 4508: 4487: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4450: 4449: 4433: 4432: 4427: 4425: 4419: 4414: 4412: 4406: 4405: 4402: 4392: 4385: 4382: 4380: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4332: 4329: 4327: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4308: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4287: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4254: 4253: 4238: 4237: 4233: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4214: 4213: 4208: 4203: 4198: 4193: 4188: 4183: 4178: 4172: 4171: 4156: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4137: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4125:Squirepants101 4119: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4053: 4052: 4050: 4043: 4038: 4037: 4025: 4011: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3986: 3985: 3967: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3944: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3912: 3911: 3894: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3688: 3687: 3670: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3615: 3614: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3427: 3426: 3411: 3396: 3395:PATH infoboxes 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3378: 3334: 3317:Ottawa Station 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3285: 3268:User:Mackensen 3266:It seems like 3226: 3217: 3201: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3129: 3091: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3072: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3047: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 2990: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2968: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2840: 2824: 2808: 2796: 2777: 2774: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2680: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2634:Likewise with 2630: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2563: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2501: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2340: 2315: 2314: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2293: 2266: 2265: 2260: 2258: 2247: 2244: 2242: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2222: 2218:is better. -- 2184: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2166: 2165: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2062: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2043: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2001: 2000: 1987: 1986: 1973: 1972: 1954: 1953: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1914: 1913: 1903: 1902: 1891: 1890: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1847: 1846: 1833: 1832: 1819: 1818: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1628: 1627: 1613: 1612: 1598: 1597: 1584: 1580: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1544: 1541: 1539: 1533: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1523: 1521: 1516: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1479: 1456: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1397:checkuserblock 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1354: 1351: 1325: 1305: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1274: 1273: 1258: 1257: 1238: 1237: 1225: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1171: 1170: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1122: 1121: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1059: 1041: 1034: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1013: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 988: 987: 972: 971: 955: 954: 939: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 843: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 821: 820: 819: 814: 806: 805: 804: 796: 795: 794: 788: 780: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 716: 715: 714: 713: 685: 671: 668: 666: 663: 661: 655: 638: 635: 632: 630: 625: 623: 620: 619: 618: 604: 601: 599: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 569: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 533: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 450: 447: 446: 445: 431: 428: 427: 426: 412: 411: 396: 393: 392: 391: 377: 374: 372: 369: 368: 367: 353: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 282: 281:209.244.43.209 279: 278: 277: 263: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 230: 227: 225: 219: 218: 217: 203: 200: 198: 195: 193: 190: 189: 188: 187: 177: 176: 171: 166: 161: 156: 151: 146: 141: 136: 131: 126: 121: 116: 111: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 81: 76: 71: 66: 61: 56: 51: 46: 41: 36: 31: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8907: 8886: 8883: 8882: 8856: 8849: 8848: 8847: 8844: 8843: 8820: 8819: 8818: 8815: 8811: 8807: 8806: 8805: 8804: 8803: 8802: 8801: 8800: 8795: 8792: 8788: 8784: 8782: 8777: 8774: 8770: 8769: 8757: 8753: 8749: 8748: 8747: 8744: 8743: 8720: 8715: 8714: 8713: 8710: 8705: 8704: 8703: 8702: 8695: 8694: 8693: 8690: 8689: 8666: 8662: 8657: 8656: 8649: 8646: 8640: 8633: 8625: 8614: 8613: 8612: 8609: 8606: 8601: 8599: 8591: 8585: 8584: 8571: 8568: 8565: 8561: 8560: 8547: 8544: 8543: 8538: 8533: 8526: 8525: 8499: 8496: 8479: 8477: 8474: 8471: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8462: 8458: 8454: 8450: 8446: 8442: 8441: 8440: 8439: 8438: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8431: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8425: 8408: 8405: 8401: 8397: 8396: 8395: 8394: 8393: 8390: 8385: 8384: 8383: 8382: 8381: 8380: 8379: 8378: 8377: 8376: 8375: 8374: 8363: 8360: 8355: 8354: 8353: 8352: 8351: 8348: 8345: 8341: 8340: 8339: 8338: 8337: 8336: 8331: 8328: 8324: 8320: 8319: 8318: 8317: 8314: 8311: 8308: 8304: 8303: 8300:Probablamenti 8291: 8288: 8286: 8285: 8280: 8279: 8278: 8275: 8272: 8268: 8267: 8266: 8263: 8261: 8260: 8254: 8253: 8243: 8240: 8238: 8235: 8228: 8227: 8226: 8223: 8220: 8216: 8215: 8207: 8204: 8201: 8197: 8196: 8193: 8190: 8186: 8182: 8178: 8174: 8173: 8160: 8156: 8152: 8148: 8147: 8146: 8143: 8139: 8135: 8134: 8133: 8129: 8125: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8115: 8111: 8093: 8089: 8085: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8075: 8070: 8069: 8068: 8064: 8060: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8050: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8040: 8036: 8031: 8030: 8029: 8026: 8021: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8014: 8013: 8012: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 8006: 7991: 7987: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7978: 7974: 7970: 7966: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7956: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7947: 7943: 7938: 7924: 7921: 7916: 7914: 7910: 7906: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7897: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7887: 7884:individuals. 7882: 7880: 7876: 7872: 7867: 7866: 7865: 7862: 7858: 7857: 7856: 7852: 7848: 7844: 7843: 7842: 7839: 7835: 7832:An eight-day 7831: 7830: 7829: 7825: 7821: 7817: 7816: 7815: 7812: 7807: 7806: 7805: 7802: 7798: 7793: 7792: 7787: 7784: 7780: 7779: 7778: 7777: 7762: 7759: 7756: 7751: 7750: 7749: 7746: 7741: 7740: 7739: 7736: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7726: 7723: 7718: 7717: 7716: 7713: 7709: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7699: 7696: 7691: 7687: 7686: 7685: 7684: 7681: 7678: 7673: 7672: 7661: 7658: 7654: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7644: 7641: 7636: 7635: 7634: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7629: 7624: 7620: 7616: 7611: 7606: 7602: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7587: 7584: 7581: 7577: 7575: 7572: 7569: 7564: 7560: 7559: 7558: 7555: 7551: 7547: 7544: 7541: 7538: 7534: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7528: 7525: 7522: 7518: 7515: 7512: 7508: 7503: 7501: 7498: 7495: 7491: 7486: 7485: 7477: 7474: 7471: 7466: 7465: 7457: 7454: 7451: 7447: 7446: 7423: 7420: 7417: 7412: 7411: 7400: 7391: 7385: 7382: 7379: 7376: 7373: 7370: 7369: 7365: 7364: 7360: 7357: 7354: 7353: 7349: 7346: 7343: 7342: 7339: 7331: 7328: 7324: 7323: 7315: 7312: 7309: 7305: 7304: 7291: 7288: 7283: 7282: 7279: 7276: 7275: 7265: 7262: 7258: 7253: 7252: 7251: 7250: 7244: 7239: 7238: 7237: 7236: 7233: 7230: 7226: 7225: 7220: 7215: 7214: 7209: 7208:Port Hamilton 7204: 7203: 7199: 7198: 7185: 7171: 7168: 7165: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7156: 7152: 7148: 7147: 7134: 7127: 7124: 7121: 7117: 7113: 7112: 7107: 7103: 7102: 7098: 7097: 7091: 7090: 7087: 7084: 7079: 7074: 7069: 7066: 7061: 7059: 7056: 7053: 7049: 7045: 7044: 7035: 7032: 7030: 7028: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7007: 7004: 7001: 6997: 6996: 6995: 6992: 6987: 6986: 6985: 6982: 6979: 6975: 6974: 6969: 6966: 6963: 6959: 6958: 6957: 6954: 6950: 6949: 6942: 6939: 6936: 6932: 6931: 6930: 6927: 6923: 6922: 6921: 6918: 6915: 6911: 6910: 6902: 6899: 6895: 6894: 6881: 6878: 6874: 6873: 6865:Your question 6858: 6855: 6854:Mailer Diablo 6851: 6850: 6849: 6846: 6840: 6837: 6836: 6824: 6821: 6817: 6813: 6812: 6811: 6808: 6805: 6801: 6800: 6799: 6796: 6792: 6788: 6781: 6774: 6773: 6769: 6768: 6760: 6748: 6745: 6742: 6738: 6737: 6729: 6726: 6724: 6717: 6713: 6710: 6707: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6698: 6693: 6692: 6689: 6686: 6683: 6679: 6678: 6668: 6665: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6655: 6652: 6649: 6645: 6644: 6634: 6631: 6628: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6618: 6613: 6611: 6608: 6605: 6600: 6599: 6591: 6588: 6585: 6581: 6580: 6574: 6570: 6569: 6568: 6562: 6561: 6560:Did you know? 6556: 6552: 6548: 6545: 6541: 6540: 6530: 6527: 6522: 6519: 6514: 6513: 6510: 6501: 6496: 6492: 6488: 6483: 6478: 6474: 6473: 6460: 6457: 6453: 6452: 6449: 6446: 6443: 6439: 6438: 6435: 6430: 6428: 6424: 6423: 6415: 6412: 6409: 6405: 6404: 6390: 6387: 6383: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6374: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6364: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6352: 6351: 6350: 6341: 6340: 6339: 6338: 6337: 6336: 6331: 6328: 6319: 6317: 6314: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6304: 6301: 6297: 6293: 6289: 6288: 6279: 6276: 6272: 6269: 6268: 6267: 6264: 6260: 6255: 6254: 6253: 6250: 6246: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6236: 6231: 6230: 6227: 6224: 6221: 6217: 6216: 6212: 6208: 6205: 6202: 6199: 6195: 6192: 6191: 6186: 6183: 6178: 6175: 6172: 6168: 6165: 6164: 6162: 6159: 6155: 6151: 6150: 6135: 6131: 6130: 6125: 6124: 6123: 6122: 6117: 6113: 6112: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6101: 6098: 6094: 6093: 6079: 6076: 6072: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6065: 6058: 6055: 6051: 6050: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6046: 6041: 6038: 6034: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6014: 6011: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6001: 6000: 5999: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5994: 5993: 5992: 5991: 5976: 5973: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5963: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5941: 5938: 5933: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5909: 5906: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5875: 5874: 5873: 5872: 5871: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5864: 5853: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5829: 5820: 5817: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5798: 5795: 5790: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5780: 5775: 5772: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5754: 5751: 5748: 5744: 5739: 5738: 5734: 5730: 5729: 5726: 5723: 5720: 5716: 5715: 5710: 5709: 5706: 5702: 5701: 5689: 5686: 5683: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5673: 5668: 5665: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5634: 5631: 5628: 5623: 5622: 5619: 5616: 5613: 5609: 5606: 5603: 5599: 5598:The Cunctator 5594: 5593: 5588: 5585: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5574: 5571: 5567: 5562: 5561: 5553: 5550: 5546: 5545: 5542: 5539: 5536: 5532: 5531: 5527: 5524: 5521: 5518: 5515: 5512: 5509: 5506: 5503: 5500: 5499: 5491: 5488: 5485: 5481: 5480: 5468: 5465: 5462: 5457: 5452: 5448: 5445: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5435: 5432: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5422: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5412: 5409: 5404: 5399: 5398: 5390: 5387: 5384: 5380: 5379: 5371: 5368: 5365: 5361: 5360: 5352: 5349: 5346: 5341: 5340: 5328: 5325: 5322: 5318: 5317:War and Peace 5314: 5313: 5312: 5309: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5292: 5289: 5285: 5284: 5276: 5273: 5270: 5266: 5265: 5256: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5240: 5224: 5221: 5217: 5214: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5205: 5202: 5198: 5194: 5190: 5186: 5184: 5179: 5176: 5173: 5170: 5167: 5164: 5161: 5158: 5155: 5152: 5149: 5146: 5143: 5138: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5129: 5125: 5122: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5113: 5109: 5106: 5102: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5094: 5091: 5087: 5086: 5083: 5073: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5064: 5061: 5054: 5044: 5037: 5036: 5033: 5018: 5015: 5012: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5003: 5001: 4998: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4986: 4983: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4974: 4972: 4969: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4957: 4954: 4950: 4949: 4921: 4918: 4914: 4912: 4909: 4905: 4904: 4898: 4894: 4891: 4890: 4884: 4858: 4855: 4853: 4851: 4843: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4836: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4826: 4824: 4822: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4807: 4787: 4784: 4781: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4771: 4768: 4764: 4763: 4748: 4745: 4742: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4733: 4730: 4725: 4724: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4694: 4677: 4674: 4671: 4667: 4666: 4664: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4648: 4645: 4641: 4640: 4630: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4618: 4615: 4611: 4610: 4607: 4598: 4595: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4586: 4583: 4579: 4578: 4570: 4567: 4564: 4560: 4559: 4549: 4546: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4535: 4532: 4529: 4524: 4523: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4492: 4479: 4476: 4473: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4451: 4448: 4445: 4442: 4437: 4436: 4431: 4426: 4423: 4418: 4413: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4401: 4400:National Rail 4397: 4390: 4389: 4384:National Rail 4370: 4367: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4342: 4339: 4335: 4334: 4321: 4318: 4315: 4311: 4310: 4307: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4290: 4289: 4281: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4268: 4265: 4262: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4252: 4249: 4245: 4244:The Uninvited 4240: 4239: 4236: 4234: 4232: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4224: 4222: 4220: 4218: 4216: 4215: 4212: 4209: 4207: 4204: 4202: 4199: 4197: 4194: 4192: 4189: 4187: 4184: 4182: 4179: 4177: 4174: 4173: 4170: 4167: 4164: 4159: 4158: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4136: 4129: 4126: 4122: 4121: 4111: 4108: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4096: 4092: 4087: 4086: 4079: 4076: 4073: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4063: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4051: 4049: 4048: 4047:National Rail 4042: 4041: 4036: 4033: 4030: 4026: 4024: 4021: 4018: 4014: 4013: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3994: 3993:Northern Line 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3984: 3981: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3943: 3940: 3937: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3923: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3910: 3907: 3905: 3903: 3897: 3896: 3884: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3869: 3864: 3859: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3848: 3845: 3841: 3836: 3835: 3817: 3814: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3787: 3784: 3783: 3780: 3775: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3752: 3749: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3730: 3727: 3726: 3723: 3718: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3704: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3673: 3672: 3660: 3655: 3650: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3627: 3622: 3617: 3616: 3613: 3610: 3607: 3603: 3602: 3587: 3582: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3505: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3493: 3488: 3481: 3471: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3459: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3399: 3398: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3333: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3313: 3312: 3305: 3301: 3299: 3290: 3286: 3284: 3280: 3278: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3257: 3248: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3225: 3222: 3218: 3216: 3213: 3211: 3205: 3204: 3198: 3185: 3181: 3172: 3166: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3136: 3130: 3128: 3124: 3115: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3101: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3085: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3071: 3067: 3060: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3037: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3013: 3012: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2981: 2978: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2967: 2956: 2953: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2927: 2923: 2922: 2919: 2904: 2901: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2850: 2845: 2841: 2839: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2825: 2823: 2820: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2807: 2804: 2801: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2789: 2784: 2783:Munich S-Bahn 2780: 2779: 2776:Munich S-Bahn 2758: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2736: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2679:Munich U-Bahn 2672: 2669: 2668: 2666:Daniel.Bryant 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2644: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2629: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2553: 2550: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2471: 2468: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2422: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2409: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2292: 2289: 2284: 2274: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2256: 2251: 2240: 2231: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2145: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2075: 2072: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2046: 2045: 2042: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2014: 2011: 2008: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1940: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1878: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1590: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1538: 1520: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1434: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1408: 1405: 1398: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1375: 1372: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1359: 1353:You're a Wyrm 1348: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1333: 1323: 1316: 1309: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1251: 1249: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1209:Free Republic 1199: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1150: 1147: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1078: 1077: 1072: 1071: 1069:Wim van Dorst 1064: 1060: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1017:Heh, thanks. 1016: 1015: 1012: 999: 996: 992: 991: 990: 989: 986: 983: 980: 976: 975: 974: 973: 970: 967: 963: 959: 958: 957: 956: 953: 950: 947: 942: 941: 921: 918: 915: 911: 910: 909: 906: 902: 901: 900: 897: 894: 889: 888: 887: 884: 879: 878: 877: 874: 871: 867: 866: 865: 862: 858: 857: 856: 853: 850: 846: 845: 831: 828: 826: 822: 818: 815: 813: 810: 809: 807: 803: 800: 799: 797: 792: 789: 787: 784: 783: 781: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 757:Bharatanatyam 754: 750: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 732: 729: 726: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 712: 709: 706: 702: 701: 700: 697: 694: 690: 686: 684: 681: 678: 674: 673: 659: 649: 642: 629: 617: 614: 610: 607: 606: 591: 588: 585: 581: 580: 579: 576: 572: 571: 568: 559: 556: 552: 551: 550: 547: 544: 540: 536: 535: 532: 521: 518: 515: 511: 510: 509: 504: 500: 496: 491: 487: 486: 485: 482: 481: 479: 471: 468: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 444: 441: 438: 434: 433: 425: 422: 419: 414: 413: 410: 407: 404: 399: 398: 390: 387: 384: 380: 379: 366: 363: 360: 356: 355: 339: 336: 332: 331: 330: 327: 323: 318: 317: 316: 313: 310: 306: 305: 304: 301: 297: 296: 295: 292: 289: 285: 284: 276: 273: 270: 266: 265: 255: 252: 249: 245: 244: 243: 240: 237: 233: 232: 223: 216: 213: 210: 206: 205: 182: 175: 172: 170: 167: 165: 162: 160: 157: 155: 152: 150: 147: 145: 142: 140: 137: 135: 132: 130: 127: 125: 122: 120: 117: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 60: 57: 55: 52: 50: 47: 45: 42: 40: 37: 35: 32: 30: 27: 26: 19: 8862: 8823: 8790: 8778: 8755: 8751: 8723: 8669: 8645:David Mestel 8528: 8322: 8283: 8258: 8233: 8142:Tony Sidaway 8114:Tony Sidaway 8074:Tony Sidaway 8049:Tony Sidaway 8025:Tony Sidaway 7989: 7968: 7964: 7955:Tony Sidaway 7896:Tony Sidaway 7861:Tony Sidaway 7838:Tony Sidaway 7811:Tony Sidaway 7689: 7609: 7604: 7600: 7562: 7513: 7489: 7482:Hi mackensen 7242: 7218: 7115: 7100: 7095: 7085: 7047: 7026: 6898:Aditya Kabir 6565: 6564: 6558: 6517: 6499: 6486: 6481: 6432: 6426: 6381: 6373:Tony Sidaway 6300:Tony Sidaway 6258: 6244: 6206: 6200: 6193: 6128: 6110: 6075:Tony Sidaway 6037:Tony Sidaway 5972:Tony Sidaway 5849:Tony Sidaway 5844: 5794:Tony Sidaway 5747:Tony Sidaway 5742: 5604: 5570:Tony Sidaway 5549:Tony Sidaway 5477:RfB question 5455: 5402: 5316: 5303: 5174: 5168: 5162: 5156: 5150: 5144: 4993: 4964: 4849: 4820: 4458: 4454: 4417:Southeastern 4090: 4062:Simply south 4045: 3996: 3901: 3813:72.94.164.52 3777: 3773: 3748:72.94.164.52 3720: 3700:72.94.164.52 3676: 3346:Dorval (AMT) 3209: 3015: 3007: 2734: 2663: 2642: 2537:137.71.23.54 2513: 2459: 2451:Simply south 2430:Simply south 2408:Simply south 2386:Simply south 2360:Simply south 2323:Simply south 2280: 2262: 2220:BetaCentauri 1958: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1727: 1483:195.92.67.75 1474:195.92.67.75 1454:Mike Mendoza 1392:I also made 1327: 1326: 1321: 1282: 1247: 1177: 1136:RE:Checkuser 1075: 1070: 1067: 1062: 1037: 575:Sam Blanning 567:Mike Mendoza 473: 466: 197:Cplot, again 88: 8461:iridescenti 8389:Thatcher131 7287:Thatcher131 7222:non-Korean. 6526:Thatcher131 6456:Newyorkbrad 5403:maintenance 4917:Newyorkbrad 4908:Thatcher131 4835:Newyorkbrad 4716:My Arb case 4626:Newyorkbrad 4594:Newyorkbrad 4545:Khalidkhoso 4277:Thatcher131 3998:sunstar net 3919:Thatcher131 3857:drumguy8800 3669:Tigers fan? 3321:Fallowfield 2643:Luna Santin 1962:I've seen. 1908:Thatcher131 1897:Thatcher131 1708:Thatcher131 1562:Newyorkbrad 1404:SunStar Net 769:User:Santap 613:Thatcher131 7693:run amok. 7219:everything 6425:You said: 6327:Iamunknown 6142:RfA reform 6090:Your query 5664:Grace Note 5584:Grace Note 5172:block user 5166:filter log 4799:Richthofen 4727:any case. 4520:Hello Dear 4422:Hayes Line 4107:Grblundell 4010:Merseyrail 3382:Peter Horn 3368:AirOdyssey 3349:Peter Horn 3338:AirOdyssey 3329:Peter Horn 3238:Peter Horn 3221:Peter Horn 2900:Agathoclea 2874:Agathoclea 2849:Agathoclea 2835:Agathoclea 2742:Agathoclea 2719:Agathoclea 2706:Agathoclea 2239:WP:MILHIST 1442:Rewireable 765:Medha Hari 8814:Tempshill 8791:talk page 8787:consensus 8709:Tempshill 8605:Mackensen 8576:Hkelkar 2 8564:Mackensen 8470:Mackensen 8344:Mackensen 8307:Mackensen 8271:Mackensen 8219:Mackensen 8200:Mackensen 7755:Mackensen 7722:Mackensen 7695:Mackensen 7640:Mackensen 7580:Mackensen 7568:Mackensen 7521:Mackensen 7494:Mackensen 7470:Mackensen 7450:Mackensen 7416:Mackensen 7308:Mackensen 7301:Hi there! 7164:Mackensen 7139:Thank you 7120:Mackensen 7052:Mackensen 7000:Mackensen 6978:Mackensen 6962:Mackensen 6935:Mackensen 6914:Mackensen 6804:Mackensen 6787:Singapore 6741:Mackensen 6706:Mackensen 6682:Mackensen 6648:Mackensen 6627:Mackensen 6604:Mackensen 6596:New point 6584:Mackensen 6465:RFA/Danny 6442:Mackensen 6408:Mackensen 6259:should be 6220:Mackensen 6153:position. 6097:Mackensen 5719:Mackensen 5682:Mackensen 5627:Mackensen 5612:Mackensen 5535:Mackensen 5484:Mackensen 5431:Mackensen 5408:Mackensen 5383:Mackensen 5364:Mackensen 5345:Mackensen 5337:Dishonest 5321:Mackensen 5288:Mackensen 5269:Mackensen 5201:Mackensen 5178:block log 5090:Mackensen 5060:Mackensen 5011:Mackensen 4982:Mackensen 4953:Mackensen 4915:I agree. 4780:Mackensen 4741:Mackensen 4729:Mackensen 4670:Mackensen 4644:Mackensen 4614:Mackensen 4582:Mackensen 4563:Mackensen 4528:Mackensen 4472:Mackensen 4441:Mackensen 4410:New Cross 4363:Mackensen 4338:Mackensen 4314:Mackensen 4293:Mackensen 4261:Mackensen 4163:Mackensen 4143:Mackensen 4095:Mackensen 4072:Mackensen 4029:Mackensen 4017:Mackensen 3977:Mackensen 3948:≈ jossi ≈ 3936:Musical L 3877:Mackensen 3844:Mackensen 3717:this edit 3637:Mackensen 3606:Mackensen 3536:Mackensen 3455:Mackensen 3418:Mackensen 3403:Mackensen 3362:, as per 3325:Aldershot 3289:Mackensen 3247:this page 3154:Mackensen 3097:Mackensen 3078:Mackensen 3053:Mackensen 3030:Mackensen 2996:Mackensen 2974:Mackensen 2935:Mackensen 2887:Mackensen 2862:Mackensen 2816:Mackensen 2800:Mackensen 2788:Mackensen 2751:Mackensen 2686:Mackensen 2609:Musical L 2593:Mackensen 2581:Musical L 2569:Mackensen 2546:Mackensen 2525:Mackensen 2464:Mackensen 2439:Mackensen 2418:Mackensen 2395:Mackensen 2374:Mackensen 2344:Mackensen 2332:Mackensen 2306:Mackensen 2191:Mackensen 2171:Mackensen 2157:Mackensen 2138:Mackensen 2115:Mackensen 2087:Mackensen 2068:Mackensen 2049:Mackensen 2007:Mackensen 1992:Mackensen 1978:Mackensen 1964:Mackensen 1945:Mackensen 1928:Mackensen 1882:Mackensen 1838:Mackensen 1824:Mackensen 1810:Mackensen 1787:Mackensen 1756:Mackensen 1680:Mackensen 1655:Mackensen 1633:Mackensen 1619:Mackensen 1589:Mackensen 1573:IRC admin 1550:Mackensen 1501:Mackensen 1462:Mackensen 1430:Mackensen 1385:Good work 1368:Mackensen 1265:Mackensen 1229:Mackensen 1217:Mackensen 1192:Mackensen 1162:Mackensen 1143:Mackensen 1090:Mackensen 1051:Mackensen 1019:Mackensen 979:Mackensen 946:Mackensen 938:Checkuser 914:Mackensen 893:Mackensen 870:Mackensen 849:Mackensen 705:Mackensen 677:Mackensen 628:Wikileaks 584:Mackensen 543:Mackensen 514:Mackensen 512:Correct. 437:Mackensen 418:Mackensen 403:Mackensen 383:Mackensen 359:Mackensen 335:Metros232 326:Metros232 322:this diff 309:Mackensen 300:Metros232 288:Mackensen 269:Mackensen 248:Fut.Perf. 236:Mackensen 209:Mackensen 8234:gaillimh 7517:contribs 7392:Question 7327:Callmebc 7272:Artaxiad 6976:Zapped. 6896:Thanks. 6844:James086 6791:removing 6785:tags to 6765:Question 6753:Re: Note 6734:Re: RfAr 6722:xaosflux 6675:Your RFB 6551:11 April 6434:puppets. 6431:I said: 5608:contribs 5216:contribs 5199:. Best, 5148:contribs 5137:NicAgent 5124:contribs 5108:contribs 4706:Penwhale 4656:Bishonen 4543:problem. 4515:Heads up 4430:Lewisham 3893:Oh dear! 3480:NWK-WTC2 3228:"toward 3066:Haunting 2738:contribs 2517:contribs 2102:Mcginnly 2031:BenBurch 1603:Mcginnly 1440:thanks! 1428:. Best, 1127:phippi46 1111:Bishonen 905:Delirium 883:Delirium 861:Delirium 477:itsJamie 470:contribs 224:restored 8697:Sorry.) 8589:Ryūlóng 8035:Viridae 7973:Viridae 7942:Viridae 7797:Viridae 7653:Viridae 7610:exactly 7550:Viridae 7261:Komdori 7229:Komdori 7116:neither 7027:Prodego 6641:Comment 6503:admins. 6482:against 6382:typical 6129:Johntex 6111:Johntex 5255:obvious 4850:Prodego 4821:Prodego 4496:pschemp 3939:inguist 3902:Prodego 3517:history 3210:`/aksha 3170:Ryūlóng 3134:Ryūlóng 3113:Ryūlóng 3010:physicq 2926:frummer 2612:inguist 2584:inguist 2521:WP:CORP 1728:offense 1422:WP:PROD 1283:Prodego 1248:Prodego 665:Stralia 634:Thanks! 460:Geekler 416:brink. 184:The Eye 8855:trivia 8624:WP:ANI 8608:(talk) 8567:(talk) 8495:Choess 8473:(talk) 8347:(talk) 8310:(talk) 8274:(talk) 8222:(talk) 8203:(talk) 8179:... ++ 7971:want. 7758:(talk) 7725:(talk) 7698:(talk) 7643:(talk) 7601:should 7583:(talk) 7571:(talk) 7524:(talk) 7497:(talk) 7473:(talk) 7453:(talk) 7419:(talk) 7311:(talk) 7257:WP:IAR 7211:first. 7167:(talk) 7123:(talk) 7101:scribe 7065:Edison 7055:(talk) 7003:(talk) 6981:(talk) 6965:(talk) 6953:Edison 6938:(talk) 6917:(talk) 6877:Pickle 6820:Chacor 6807:(talk) 6795:Chacor 6744:(talk) 6709:(talk) 6697:Taxman 6685:(talk) 6651:(talk) 6630:(talk) 6607:(talk) 6587:(talk) 6445:(talk) 6411:(talk) 6223:(talk) 6188:with?" 6171:WP:DFA 6100:(talk) 5722:(talk) 5685:(talk) 5630:(talk) 5615:(talk) 5538:(talk) 5487:(talk) 5464:(talk) 5434:(talk) 5411:(talk) 5386:(talk) 5367:(talk) 5348:(talk) 5324:(talk) 5291:(talk) 5272:(talk) 5204:(talk) 5093:(talk) 5063:(talk) 5053:s-line 5043:s-rail 5014:(talk) 4985:(talk) 4980:Done. 4956:(talk) 4813:, not 4783:(talk) 4744:(talk) 4739:Done. 4732:(talk) 4673:(talk) 4647:(talk) 4617:(talk) 4585:(talk) 4566:(talk) 4531:(talk) 4475:(talk) 4444:(talk) 4366:(talk) 4341:(talk) 4317:(talk) 4296:(talk) 4264:(talk) 4166:(talk) 4146:(talk) 4098:(talk) 4075:(talk) 4032:(talk) 4020:(talk) 3980:(talk) 3952:(talk) 3880:(talk) 3847:(talk) 3832:S-line 3782:lawson 3779:chris. 3725:lawson 3722:chris. 3681:lawson 3678:chris. 3640:(talk) 3609:(talk) 3539:(talk) 3458:(talk) 3421:(talk) 3406:(talk) 3319:. The 3157:(talk) 3100:(talk) 3081:(talk) 3056:(talk) 3033:(talk) 2999:(talk) 2987:WP:ANI 2977:(talk) 2938:(talk) 2890:(talk) 2865:(talk) 2819:(talk) 2803:(talk) 2791:(talk) 2754:(talk) 2728:FloSch 2689:(talk) 2596:(talk) 2572:(talk) 2567:Sure. 2549:(talk) 2544:Sure. 2528:(talk) 2507:Elonka 2467:(talk) 2442:(talk) 2421:(talk) 2398:(talk) 2377:(talk) 2347:(talk) 2335:(talk) 2309:(talk) 2194:(talk) 2174:(talk) 2160:(talk) 2141:(talk) 2118:(talk) 2106:Natter 2098:Thanks 2090:(talk) 2080:Mail 2 2071:(talk) 2052:(talk) 2010:(talk) 1995:(talk) 1981:(talk) 1967:(talk) 1959:didn't 1948:(talk) 1931:(talk) 1885:(talk) 1841:(talk) 1836:Done. 1827:(talk) 1813:(talk) 1790:(talk) 1759:(talk) 1746:Geogre 1732:matter 1683:(talk) 1674:Sure. 1658:(talk) 1636:(talk) 1622:(talk) 1607:Natter 1592:(talk) 1553:(talk) 1504:(talk) 1465:(talk) 1433:(talk) 1371:(talk) 1268:(talk) 1232:(talk) 1220:(talk) 1195:(talk) 1182:lawson 1179:chris. 1165:(talk) 1146:(talk) 1093:(talk) 1065:....? 1054:(talk) 1022:(talk) 982:(talk) 962:WP:AN3 949:(talk) 917:(talk) 896:(talk) 873:(talk) 852:(talk) 708:(talk) 680:(talk) 598:My RFA 587:(talk) 555:Rlevse 546:(talk) 517:(talk) 440:(talk) 421:(talk) 406:(talk) 386:(talk) 362:(talk) 312:(talk) 291:(talk) 272:(talk) 239:(talk) 212:(talk) 192:Thanks 8404:Giano 8359:Giano 8327:Giano 8284:Zsinj 8259:Zsinj 7990:don't 7542:and 7507:Xoloz 6991:Ali'i 6926:Ali'i 6814:Heh. 6739:Yes. 6617:Xoloz 6490:RFA.) 6386:Durin 6313:Durin 6275:Durin 6273::) -- 6249:Durin 6245:later 5652:good. 5444:Xoloz 5421:Xoloz 5308:Xoloz 5304:still 5248:WP:RS 4941:Email 4811:block 4459:every 4246:Co., 4091:first 3525:watch 3521:links 3297:notes 3294:Grace 3276:notes 3273:Grace 3255:notes 3252:Grace 2842:Well 1919:Irpen 1869:Giano 1854:Giano 1777:Giano 1667:Irpen 1645:Irpen 1040:Baron 825:A. B. 725:BozMo 693:BozMo 16:< 8155:talk 8128:talk 8088:talk 8063:talk 7909:talk 7875:talk 7851:talk 7824:talk 7708:here 7619:talk 7605:have 7539:and 7511:talk 7398:edit 7243:real 7155:El_C 6780:fact 6555:2007 6487:that 6401:Sigh 5602:talk 5456:less 5252:very 5220:talk 5191:and 5160:logs 5142:talk 5128:talk 5112:talk 5101:done 4704:. - 4702:here 4660:talk 4500:talk 4248:Inc. 4155:Geni 3696:GFDL 3654:talk 3649:Aude 3626:talk 3621:Aude 3581:talk 3576:Aude 3557:talk 3552:Aude 3529:logs 3513:talk 3509:edit 3492:talk 3487:Aude 3444:talk 3439:Aude 3372:Talk 3364:WP:V 3342:Talk 3068:and 2948:Yank 2918:Veoh 2844:this 2827:This 2732:talk 2649:talk 2605:here 2511:talk 2356:here 2225:talk 2210:and 2131:Sock 1426:here 1115:talk 1076:Talk 728:talk 696:talk 475:OhNo 464:talk 454:See 262:Mail 8752:are 8536:rou 8181:Lar 7563:did 7153:). 7096:WjB 7048:any 6833:RFB 6549:On 6500:was 6493:On 6475:On 6323::-) 5845:not 5743:bad 4846:). 4815:ban 4804:Ban 4767:BRG 4708:| 4494::) 4455:his 3774:not 2951:sox 2883:BOB 2460:was 2272:Hex 1341:¿п? 1336:.D. 1038:and 503:WRE 490:J.S 472:). 8880:te 8878:ai 8876:hw 8874:et 8872:tl 8870:os 8866:an 8864:Ry 8860:? 8858:}} 8852:{{ 8841:te 8839:ai 8837:hw 8835:et 8833:tl 8831:os 8827:an 8825:Ry 8793:. 8741:te 8739:ai 8737:hw 8735:et 8733:tl 8731:os 8727:an 8725:Ry 8687:te 8685:ai 8683:hw 8681:et 8679:tl 8677:os 8673:an 8671:Ry 8667:? 8596:) 8594:竜龍 8541:ni 8531:Kk 8325:" 8183:: 8122:-- 8082:-- 8057:-- 7965:do 7894:-- 7869:-- 7690:is 7548:. 7490:or 6783:}} 6777:{{ 6575:. 6557:, 6553:, 6371:-- 6325:-- 6132:\ 6114:\ 5792:-- 5103:. 5056:}} 5050:{{ 5046:}} 5040:{{ 4899:” 4892:“ 4844::( 4665:. 4658:| 4502:) 3527:| 3523:| 3519:| 3515:| 3511:| 3483:}} 3477:{{ 3473:}} 3467:{{ 3374:) 3302:§ 3281:§ 3260:§ 3182:) 3146:) 3125:) 3022:) 2700:- 2458:I 2286:❞) 2282:?! 2278:(❝ 2104:| 1742:is 1605:| 1400:}} 1394:{{ 1113:| 1085:. 1049:. 964:? 775:, 8868:P 8829:P 8729:P 8675:P 8592:( 8189:c 8187:/ 8185:t 7969:I 7514:· 7509:( 7402:] 7380:. 7355:+ 6516:( 5605:· 5600:( 5218:/ 5180:) 5175:· 5169:· 5163:· 5157:· 5151:· 5145:· 5140:( 5126:/ 5110:/ 5048:/ 4996:M 4967:M 4498:( 3867:T 3862:C 3656:) 3652:( 3628:) 3624:( 3583:) 3579:( 3559:) 3555:( 3531:) 3507:( 3494:) 3490:( 3446:) 3442:( 3370:( 3340:( 3179:龍 3176:竜 3173:( 3167:— 3143:龍 3140:竜 3137:( 3122:龍 3119:竜 3116:( 3110:— 3018:c 3014:( 2735:· 2730:( 2651:) 2647:( 2514:· 2509:( 2227:) 2223:( 1331:S 1328:— 1120:. 1079:) 1073:( 505:) 501:/ 499:C 497:/ 495:T 493:( 467:· 462:( 251:☼

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

Index