This article contains links, text or other information that has been inserted due to a business arrangement by the
Wikimedia Foundation rather than the usual Wikipedia editing process. It may or may not comply with all of Wikipedia's normal editorial standards.
Yes, I realise that everyone else who is standing for election is filling their statement with abstract philosophical views, but I don't think that's the most effective and pragmatic approach. I intend to bring a (sorely needed) sense of humour and perspective to the proceedings of the committee. Perhaps then disputes could be handled more fairly and efficiently. Excessive seriousness and organisation can be counter-productive to any work. With work so important and serious as that of this committee, airs of seriousness or importance could be lethal!
Postscript: I noticed that all the other candidates like to note how long they've been editing. For the record I've been on Wikipedia since rather late 2003.
Second Postscript: In light of this advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes in a sudden and unexpected flash, I'd like it be known that I am against it. This sort of thing goes completely against all the principles of Wikipedia. So many of us have worked so hard; I'm sure each and every one of you can think to how much you've put into Wikipedia. We can't let that be threatened at all. You can all be deadly certain of where exactly I stand on this issue, as a committee candidate. And, I suggest that unless you are glad to see the coming of this change, you don't stand around, but take real action.
Third Postcript, or, Talking Points:
Humour
Pragmatism & Effeciency
Down with advertising!
Fourth Postscript: In the interests of honesty, I should note that I just researched again when I began editting Wikipedia and it was actually not "late 2003" but really January 2004.
Oppose I want to be just like everyone else, so this is my vote. That said, vote for me! A vote for you is a vote for me! A vote for beer is a vote, my dear.
DG09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Has engaged in vandalism and disruption to make a
WP:POINT, which I remember quite vividly because people were accusing him of being a sockpuppet of mine.
DreamGuy10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose strange statement, strange answers to questions, strange user page...I don't think you're serious enough to get the job done. Also, your lack of experience.
Sarah Ewart10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I cannot work out which bits of your statement and question answers are serious and which are not. The response to some of the questions could also have been more civil.
Thryduulf12:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I see hasty requests for deletion as well as actual vandalism in recent history. I like the idea of adding some humor to arbitration, but...
Kafziel14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose - Reponses impress me as abrupt, abrassive, and lacking any sense of what arbitration is about. Nor do I find them humorous. --
EMS |
Talk17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose--As much as I hate to do it, I'm going to vote in the opposition. His appeal is nice, and I like his idea of involving humor, but he needlessly resorted to insults in the questions page.
Dr. B18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think being organized is an important feature of the arb-com. As for the rest of the candidate statement - the arb-com doesn't have nuch to do with deciding about ads, does it? --
Marcika
Oppose While I would support a bit more lightheartedness to the arbitration process, it still remains a very serious and important matter, and I don't think you understand that. –
Comics (
Talk)
08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
This article contains links, text or other information that has been inserted due to a business arrangement by the
Wikimedia Foundation rather than the usual Wikipedia editing process. It may or may not comply with all of Wikipedia's normal editorial standards.
Yes, I realise that everyone else who is standing for election is filling their statement with abstract philosophical views, but I don't think that's the most effective and pragmatic approach. I intend to bring a (sorely needed) sense of humour and perspective to the proceedings of the committee. Perhaps then disputes could be handled more fairly and efficiently. Excessive seriousness and organisation can be counter-productive to any work. With work so important and serious as that of this committee, airs of seriousness or importance could be lethal!
Postscript: I noticed that all the other candidates like to note how long they've been editing. For the record I've been on Wikipedia since rather late 2003.
Second Postscript: In light of this advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes in a sudden and unexpected flash, I'd like it be known that I am against it. This sort of thing goes completely against all the principles of Wikipedia. So many of us have worked so hard; I'm sure each and every one of you can think to how much you've put into Wikipedia. We can't let that be threatened at all. You can all be deadly certain of where exactly I stand on this issue, as a committee candidate. And, I suggest that unless you are glad to see the coming of this change, you don't stand around, but take real action.
Third Postcript, or, Talking Points:
Humour
Pragmatism & Effeciency
Down with advertising!
Fourth Postscript: In the interests of honesty, I should note that I just researched again when I began editting Wikipedia and it was actually not "late 2003" but really January 2004.
Oppose I want to be just like everyone else, so this is my vote. That said, vote for me! A vote for you is a vote for me! A vote for beer is a vote, my dear.
DG09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Has engaged in vandalism and disruption to make a
WP:POINT, which I remember quite vividly because people were accusing him of being a sockpuppet of mine.
DreamGuy10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose strange statement, strange answers to questions, strange user page...I don't think you're serious enough to get the job done. Also, your lack of experience.
Sarah Ewart10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I cannot work out which bits of your statement and question answers are serious and which are not. The response to some of the questions could also have been more civil.
Thryduulf12:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I see hasty requests for deletion as well as actual vandalism in recent history. I like the idea of adding some humor to arbitration, but...
Kafziel14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose - Reponses impress me as abrupt, abrassive, and lacking any sense of what arbitration is about. Nor do I find them humorous. --
EMS |
Talk17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose--As much as I hate to do it, I'm going to vote in the opposition. His appeal is nice, and I like his idea of involving humor, but he needlessly resorted to insults in the questions page.
Dr. B18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think being organized is an important feature of the arb-com. As for the rest of the candidate statement - the arb-com doesn't have nuch to do with deciding about ads, does it? --
Marcika
Oppose While I would support a bit more lightheartedness to the arbitration process, it still remains a very serious and important matter, and I don't think you understand that. –
Comics (
Talk)
08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply