Kevyn

My name is Kevyn Jacobs, I am 37 years old, and I live in Lynnwood, Washington, Washington, USA, which is located at the northern end of Seattle, Washington. (I ended up here purely by accident). I find Wikipedia addicting, and I love the fact that it's free, open-source and user-run. =My Contributions= == All my Wikipedia edits are Public Domain == == Editing == Even though I am a good writer, I enjoy editing more than writing. Consequently, most of the work I do on Wikipedia is general-purpose editing -- copy editing, formatting, clarifying, wikifying, fixing links, creating redirects, etc. I have done an immense amount of work on Wikipedia:Disambiguation in my time here. I have a knack for organizing information, and I put this skill to use in working on disambiguation pages. (Other people play solitaire on their computers; I go through pages, checking and fixing links. It's a hobby.) I am also active on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. ==Articles that I have written, or at least started:== *The Crimson Permanent Assurance *Red Alert (book) *Ggantija *Frontier Flying Service *Minor characters in Star Wars *Minor races in Star Wars *Silver Ring Thing *Ellen *Ellen (TV show) *Nielsen Media Research *ACNielsen *Fifth Third Bank *Thomas Van Orden *Van Orden v. Perry *Destitution *Tilt-A-Whirl ''Plus too many disambig and redirect pages to count.'' ==Significant contributions to articles and subjects:== *Red Alert (in all its permutations) *Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages *Wikipedia:Multiple-place names *Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (I used to work there) *Babylon 5 (in all its permutations) *Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy *Ambassador (in all its permutations) *Texas State Capitol *McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky *Greg Abbott *Cu Chi tunnels =Topics of Interest= ==Chronicling the Universe== :''"I will tell you a great secret, Captain. Perhaps the greatest of all time. The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make up this station and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are starstuff, we are the Universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out."'' -Delenn, Babylon 5 Episode ''A Distant Star'' I have often felt the same way Delenn does about myself and the my role in the Universe -- that I ''am'' the Universe, a living, conscious part of the Universe, whose job it is to understand. Everything. It's one of the primary, guiding principles in my life. I don't have offspring, I don't particularly Belief in god, at least not the way monotheism do, and I don't believe in an afterlife. None of these things that most people in my culture take for granted as giving purpose and meaning to their lives work for me. For me, the purpose of my existence is to be the eyes, and ears, and mind of the Universe. To experience. To remember. To understand. And part of that understanding requires chronicling, recording, and preserving that understanding. For ourselves, for our inheritors, and for the Universe itself. That's why I am drawn to Wikipedia. It's what we are doing here. We're chronicling the Universe here. And to a much greater degree than other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is letting the Universe do its own recording. I like that. ==(disambiguation) pages - Why I hate them== I love disambiguation pages. I really do. I spend hours cleaning them up, fixing links to them, and adding meanings to them. I guess there's something in my nature that loves tackling ambiguity. However, "Primary" topic disambiguations -- especially the creation of ''"TITLE (disambiguation)"'' pages -- are, in my opinion, a bad idea. They are illogical, ugly and inelegant kludges. The stated reason for their existence is that there are certain topics where one meaning dominates other meanings (which, of course there are), and that in those cases, the primary topic should get the unadorned name (which I disagree with). The second, not-as-often stated reason is that "most" users typing in a search term are looking for meaning X, and so they should be taken straight to it, instead of having to have to go through a disambiguation page, first. Codswallop, I say, in part because the minority of users looking for meaning Y now have to go through ''two'' pages - from the primary meaning, which points them to a disambig page, which then points to their desired destination. The third, usually unstated reason for their existence seems to be lazy editors, who don't want to have to go fixing a large number of links that point to their page. I know I am in the minority in my opinion, but if I were a god, I would do away with all ''"TITLE (disambiguation)"'' pages, altogether, and make the primary topics use the same ''"TITLE (disambiguating information)"'' format that all the other meanings, both equal and lesser, use. In my universe, Gold would be located at Gold (element), Ambassador would be located at Ambassador (diplomacy), and 911 would be located at 911 (year). Place names that have (disambiguation) pages would be located by geography, so that Paris would be located at Paris, France, and Chicago would be located at Chicago, Illinois (Actually, Chicago ''is'' located there, but because of the silly primary topic policy, Chicago is a redirect page to it, instead of the disambiguation page it logically should be). If a term has primacy, it should of course be listed as the first definition on a disambiguation page. But that should be enough. I think our users are smart enough to be able to take it from there. Other reasons I dislike (disambiguation) pages: *Disambiguation notices at the top of articles are ugly. They break the flow of the article, and really are making the page do double duty - first as a disambiguating page, and second as an article. I would much rather see the disambiguation take place ''before'' the user has arrived at the article. *Decisions about what is the primary definition can be entirely subjective. For instance, a very strong argument could be made that the meaning of club is just as equally a club (weapon) as it is a club, but it is the group of people who get primacy on Wikipedia. Often, I think these decisions are made simply by "which article was written first" (see my earlier comment about lazy editors not fixing links). *Primary definitions change over time. A perfect example of this is the term "CD". Today, CD's primary definition is compact disc. Twenty-five years ago, everyone would have known you were talking about Certificate of Deposit or Civil Defense. Twenty-five years from now, CDs as a recording medium will probably be obsolete, and the primary definition might very well go back to what it was before. *Primary definitions change from place to place. An example of this might be St. Louis, to which Wikipedia gives the city in Missouri primacy. However, if you go to Europe, I suspect if you ask someone what comes to mind first, it's probably going to be the French king. (Wikipedia is often subject to charges of American-centric bias, and I think it is something that editors need to be especially sensitive to.) *Some editors use the number of links to an article to gauge which article is primary, but I think this is pretty shaky justification. That number of links is influenced by a couple of changing factors: What topics people are writing articles about, and which words editors are linking (or not linking) in their articles. OK, enough ranting. I know I'm not going to influence any opinions here, and I've arrived at the table a couple of years to late to influence the way Wikipedia handles these issues. But I do want to state, for the record, that I personally will not create (disambiguation) pages -- any time I need to disambiguate, I'm not going to give any one term primacy. Primary definitions break the logical structure of how pages are organized in Wikipedia, adding an unneeded level of complexity, and I want no part of them. ==Why isn't Wikipedia a dictionary?== ''This rant coming soon'' Commons:User:Kevyn

Kevyn

== Welcome to Wikipedia == Hello, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the Wikipedia:tutorial and introducing yourself at the Wikipedia:new user log. For ideas of what to put on User:Kevyn, see Wikipedia:User page. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Wikipedia:help desk or on User talk:Angela. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can preview your changes before you save using the Wikipedia:show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Wikipedia:Community Portal. I look forward to reading your Wikipedia:How to write a great article and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedia:Wikipedians. :) User:Angelauser talk:Angela 11:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) : Thank you Angela, I appreciate the welcome. I have been enjoying editing -- I find it addicting! ;-)User:Kevyn 08:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) == Haddon == I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Haddon and Haddon, New Jersey. Since Haddon, New Jersey is not a town, the disambig page should not link to it. Haddon, New Jersey is a common error made in looking for the three "Haddons" so I made it back into a redirect page to the disambig page. Thanks for your hard work, and best regards --User:Hcheney User talk:Hcheney 05:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Are you ''sure'' it doesn't exist? The USGS Nameserver lists it as a populated place: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnis/web_query.gnis_web_query_form :And it is also referenced in the article, New Jersey State Highway 76C :User:Kevyn 05:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::I'm positive. I grew up in Haddonfield, which borders Haddon Township and Haddon Heights. Furthermore, New Jersey has a very odd naming convention for municipalities that are townships, and under some circumstances the "township" is dropped from the name. Also, some populated areas/placenames/localities, like Blackwood, New Jersey are not municipalities - Blackwood is located in Gloucester Township, New Jersey. Since New Jersey does not have any unincorpated areas, you can associate any placename with a municipality, in this case Haddon would refer to any one of three municipalities: Haddonfield, Haddon Township, or Haddon Heights. --User:Hcheney User talk:Hcheney 10:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::Very well then, thank you. Also, thanks for fixing New Jersey State Highway 76C so that the link pointed to the right place. User:Kevyn 00:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==VfD listings== Good evening, Kevyn. You just listed a whole lot of ACDC songs on VfD with a recommendation to merge and redirect. You actually do not have to list them. Just be bold and do the merge yourself. If someone feels strongly opposed to your decision, they can always come along later and revert it. The only reason we have extra controls on the deletion process is that when a page is deleted, information is lost. That's one of the only decisions that can not be easily reverted. I'll try to help with the merge and redirects, but I'm not enough of a fan to know what to keep. Happy editing. User:Rossami 04:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Thanks. I'll be more bold about such moves in the future. User:Kevyn 15:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Hindustan Motors== You put a {delete} tag on it, but I don't see any explanation on Talk pages. If you are planning to move the content of Hindustan (car) there, that probably makes sense. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to delete the redir. Also, I don't understand why you completely removed the info about H. ambassador and AMC ambassador from ambassador automobile, without making the latter into a full disamb page (unless it's because it's quite challenging to find info on the 'yellow ambassador'), especially since someone looking for a car named ambassador is more likely wanting one of the other two. (PS I've got to applaud your willingness to do the clean up after the page move--not everyone does.) User:Niteowlneils 14:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Regarding Hindustan Motors : I had put an explanation on Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions, but didn't think about doing so on the talk page. I've remedied that now. :Regarding ambassador automobile: check again, I did make it into a full disambig page, you must have just seen it before I had hit "save". :Regarding cleanup after move: Thanks! I'm kind of anal that way. ;-) :User:Kevyn 15:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::OK, the redir is gone, so you can do the move. After I left the note it occurred to me that I should have added something like "Maybe this is a work in progress?" since it was all near the top of your edit history. Looks good. Happy editing. User:Niteowlneils 15:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Thanks! Move completed. User:Kevyn 15:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) == BJAODN Next Page Title == Come on, place a vote as well as adding your ideas! --User:Lubaf 17:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) *OK! OK! Done! User:Kevyn 05:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) == Star Wars minor characters == Always nice to see someone else that hates little mini- fiction stubs. Combining into one article is a great effort. GL! -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 06:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) *Thanks! This came about because of the stubs that kept appearing on VfD. So I took matters in my own hands and stared creating the meta article. I'm also responsible for creating Minor races in Star Wars. And, I'd love to see Minor planets in Star Wars done as well! User:Kevyn 06:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==To Anacreon in Heaven== I was told a while ago that the page was real, and I restored it, having deleted it. Thanks. A pub song? Maybe that's why it looks rather odd. :) --Merovingian">User:Merovingian✍Talk">User talk:Merovingian 14:00, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) == dab ordering == Not that I really care that much, but it actually is quite common to use whatever natual phrasing is most appropriate for a particular disambiguation. There are many many many disambig pages where the title is not the first word. But makes little difference to me. User:Bkonrad 18:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) == primary disambiguation -- it's OK! == Hi, After our discussion at Talk:RC4, I noticed your comments on disambiguation pages on your user page. Since they're on your User page, I guess you might be interested in discussing it, so I thought I might be bold enough put forward some counterarguments, and suggest why the current Wikipedia primary disambiguation policy is quite reasonable. First, what is the purpose of disambiguation? Disambiguation currently addresses two problems, and, eventually, should be needed only for one. When a user enters a topic name in the Search Box, the name might be ambiguous and refer to several topics. The disambiguation procedure helps him locate the article he's actually after. Similarly, internal links are sometimes (often!) ''not'' correctly disambiguated — this should eventually be fixed, but the disamiguation procedure handily helps here in exactly the same way. Second, what makes for a successful strategy? Well, in my opinion, the best disambiguation strategy is that which helps the reader find the article that he wants to read as fast as possible; this is measured (primarily) in the number of page clicks. The reason the primary disambiguation strategy is a good one — in my opinion — is that it minimises the number of clicks a reader needs ''when averaged over all readers''. Let's take an example. If 90% of readers are looking for the encryption algorithm RC4 (reader type I) when they type "RC4" it into the search box, and 5% are looking for "Route Coloniale 4" (reader type II), and 5% are looking for "''Racy Concubines IV''" (say) (reader type III) we can measure the effectiveness of each strategy. Currently, there is a disambiguation page at "RC4". So both "type I" and "type II" (and "type III") must expend one click to reach their desired topic. The expected number of clicks is, obviously, 1 per reader. However, if we had the strategy of putting RC4 (cipher) at RC4, and including a disambiguation header at the top of the article to RC4 (disambiguation), then the number of clicks differs for each type: reader I has 0 clicks; and readers II and III have two clicks: first at the cipher page, then at the disambiguation page. However, given the distribution of readers above, the expected number of clicks for a random reader is: 0.90 * 0 + 0.05 * 2 + 0.05 * 2 = 0.20 clicks. So, averaged over all the readers, this latter strategy (favoured by Wikipedia policy) leads to five times fewer clicks for readers than the first strategy (favoured by yourself). (The real world case of RC4, which doesn't require an "X (disambiguation)" page, is even better, of course.) You say: :"''A second reason...is that "most" users typing in a search term are looking for meaning X, and so they should be taken straight to it, instead of having to have to go through a disambiguation page, first. Codswallop, I say, in part because the minority of users looking for meaning Y now have to go through two pages - from the primary meaning, which points them to a disambig page, which then points to their desired destination.''" Both the second reason and your comment are true. But, as argued above, it turns out that you can save a lot of clicks by making "minority topic" readers do more work. This is like in Morse code, where common letters like E and T tend to have one or two dits and dashes; less common letters like Z and Q have four dits and dashes. This is merely a strategy to make the code more compact. :"''Disambiguation notices at the top of articles are ugly.''" I can't really argue against this, as it's a subjective issue, but I don't have any aesthetic problems with them myself. :"''Decisions about what is the primary definition can be entirely subjective. For instance, a very strong argument could be made that the meaning of club is just as equally a weapon as it is a group of people, but it is the group of people who get primacy on Wikipedia. Often, I think these decisions are made simply by "which article was written first"''" Yes, in practice, the choice about which article is primary can be subjective or an accident of Wikipedia history. I think the choice of primary article (if any) should ''not'' be made on such criteria; this is not so much an argument against the policy of primary disambiguation per se — in cases like these something should be fixed. The policy says that we primary disambiguate when a topic is "clearly predominant"; chance or whim are not good methods for establishing whether an article is clearly predominant. :''"Primary definitions change over time."'' Yes, but relatively slowly. Wikipedia is more than sufficiently flexible to adapt to follow suit — page moves are cheap. :''Primary definitions change from place to place.'' Then, when establishing if a meaning is "clearly predominant", we should consider whether the meaning is primary when taken over an average of all readers. If there are two large comparably-sized groups of readers which use two different predominant definitions, then yes, primary disambiguation is inappropriate. Again, this doesn't seem to be a problem with the policy. :''Some editors use the number of links to an article to gauge which article is primary, but I think this is pretty shaky justification.'' Yes, it's quite possible that this could lead to mistakes. But this is a problem with how some users judge whether an article is primary, not with the policy itself. It is true that people sometimes make mistakes when choosing primary articles", but I believe that for 95% of cases common sense lets us make the right decisions. There is also objective data, for example, RC4 (cipher) has received 308 hits so far this month. Route coloniale 4 received 9. Clearly, there's always going to be debatable cases, but we can debate them. User:Matt Crypto 11:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) ===In practice...=== I have moved RC4 as Matt suggested. I hope that is OK, if not tell me and let's talk. But assuming I have correctly interpretted your views, may I say that I greatly admire the way you have enabled a consensus decision to go ahead? Consensus is not an easy concept to grasp. True consensus is generally only possible when those in the minority say OK, we can see how the group is thinking, let us move on for the sake of the common goal. The minority have an enormous responsibility here to communicate and avoid errors of groupthink. They must never pretend to have changed their minds, just their votes! In any case, great to have you in this discussion. User:Andrewa 19:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Lomonosov Prize == Hey Kevyn! It looks like there used to be two kinds of awards bearing Lomonosov's name - Lomonosov Prize (Lomonosovskaya premiya in Russian) and Lomonosov Gold medal (and there are two kinds of medals - one for the Russian scientists, the other one for the foreign scientists). When I translated the article about Lodygin, it mentioned the Lomonosov Prize, which had been established some time after his death by the Russian Academy of Sciences. User:KNewman 22:35, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) ==Red-link recovery== Howdy and many thanks for your work on that User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains a link that might be mis-punctuated. The list's pretty much completed now - I'll be generating a new version of it in due course, taking all the lessons learned from the last one into account. In the meantime, if you enjoyed working through the list (or at least found it a worthwhile distraction), you may want to have a look at the similar User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains a red link that may be due to a plural discrepancy which highlights red-links that might be red because they (or the article they are aiming for) are improperly pluralised. Again, thanks for your efforts - award yourself a :Image:WikiMedal_for_Janitorial_Services.png if you haven't already got one! - User:Topbanana 11:28, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. User:Ram-Man – User:Ram-Man ^{([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]) (User talk:Ram-Man)} 14:12, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC) **I have released all of my Wikipedia work into the Public Domain. User:Kevyn 02:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Plague == Kevyn - I noticed that you have reviewed both the Bubonic Plague and the Black Death articles. Would you look over the work I've been doing on the Bubonic Plague page -- and the argument I'm having with myself on the very quiet discussion page. I'm still an anonymous - and learning the ropes. Most of the changes I have in mind for this and other topics should be done by someone who knows the system and links. I'll learn in time -- and will undoubtedly sign in, so I can shuffle pages and download images. Comments and criticism welcome. -W. 2-16-05 == Walton's Mountain == Its all good. i just didn't understand. User:Vaoverland 06:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) == User:Willy on wheels forever and BJAODN titles == His opposing votes seem very questionable and outrageous. Do you think we should remove them? He is posting stuff like, "GOD I hate star trek..." --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 23:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Nah, I'd let them stay. No need to have anyone accuse us of being undemocratic or stifling opposition. Are his reasons vapid? Sure. But it's just one negative vote on a couple of sections, and they'll be cancelled out as more people vote in favour of them. I wouldn't let him worry you. User:Kevyn 00:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) == More BJAODN titles == I added two new sections... and a few more titles. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 00:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I see. OK, well, we'll let them stand or fall on their own merit. But if you ask me, some of those titles are just... bad. ;-) User:Kevyn 05:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) == BJAODN voting == Thank you. I wasn't positive I could vote, so I hedged on the negative. I will fix, and vote some more! Disclosure: I am genetically predisposed to bad puns. --User:Mothperson 14:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==BJAODN conundrum== I just sent this to --User:AllyUnion. and then noticed he is off, moving. Perhaps you could help with this question. Someone who shall remain nameless wants to add some titles that fall under "television" but are references to a single show, maybe some quotes, too. Probably a small bunch of references. Or maybe a slightly bigger bunch. The person thinks the show might deserve its own category, but can't figure out how to add it without a) completely messing up the numbering system; b) linking it inappropriately to an existing number; c) putting it down at the very bottom under the page numbers, which seems odd. What do you think would be the most sensible way to handle this? I will convey your directions to the person. Thanks. --User:Mothperson 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Adding a section is very easy. You don't need to worry about the numbering system: It's completely automatic. Just edit the page, and at the point you want to insert the new category, just type it like this: :== Category title here == :If it's a subcategory, do this: :=== Sub-Category title here === :Hope that helps! User:Kevyn -- User:Kevyn User talk:Kevyn 03:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) == New BJAODN Title page == Looks like Wikipedia:Valley of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is full... I think it's time to start a new BJAODN page... --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 08:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Go for it. User:Kevyn -- User:Kevyn User talk:Kevyn 09:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Odd...== User:Mothperson tends to vote Oppose alot. Does he just have a passion for disagreeing with us? -- User:Riffsyphon1024 18:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC) *Nah, Mothperson is just playing politics. It's discovered that it can affect the outcome of votes by using Oppose votes to weigh down titles it doesn't prefer over titles it does. This makes its favoured titles rise up in the rankings. This is a perfectly valid tactic in the democratic process, but it will lose its effectiveness as time goes on, because others will cancel out Mothperson's votes. I wouldn't let it "bug" ya ;-) User:Kevyn -- User:Kevyn User talk:Kevyn 17:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ==an apology== But ''now'', I am laughing somewhat hysterically because I came here due to paranoia, and found the above, which transforms it to veranoia. No, actually I came to make sure you knew I was just joking about the moon-landing thing. But this is interesting - the idea that "oppose" is viewed as an irritating "tactic". I honestly didn't think opposing suggestions was such a terrible thing, given that I am extremely enthusiastic about others. Why do we have to love everything? I kind of don't like having my opinion viewed as a tactic, but it doesn't really matter. You liked BJAODN on Blueberry Island, so you get a free pass to "insult" me whenever you want. You're okay, in my books. (of course, my approval of you has probably just lowered your general Wiki standing but I didn't mean for that to happen!!!) Cripes. Can't do anything right, it would seem. �'est la vie. --User:Mothperson 14:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) == lots of edits, not an admin == Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- user:Rick Block (user talk:Rick Block) 17:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

K

KA | KB | KC | KD | KE | KF | KG | KH | KI | KJ | KL | KM | KN | KO | KP | KR | KS | KT | KU | KW | KX | KY | KZ |

Words begining with Kevyn:

Kevyn
Kevyn
Kevyn_Acoin
Kevyn_Acoin
Kevyn_Adams
Kevyn_Adams
Kevyn_Aucoin
Kevyn_Aucoin