I decided to self nominate because I just resolved a week-dead VfD at
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pauper magic. It occurred to me that I'm not sure whether it's kosher for non-admins to do that. If not, it seems more admins are needed because VfD often takes some time to get resolved after the voting period has expired. For another example see
Sega Genesis Screenshot Gallery.
At any rate, I have about 1050 edits, with good variety: added content (see my user page/brag list), copy edits, recategorizations, VfD, talk pages, and the creation of a new
Latter Day Saint WikiProject, although the last has yet to prove its worth.
At any rate, I'd like to be an admin for VfD resolution and speedy deletion. VfD and new pages are my hobbies when bored.
Yes. Seems Cool Head Luke and business-like. Haven't personally seen him under fireDealt with him amicably on
Reformed Egyptian; I imagine he is good at staying cool.
Tom -
Talk 18:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm extremely happy to support Cool Hand Luke here. He's a great user and has helped out a lot with a whole bunch of topics.
Cookiecaper 08:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yup. Adminship is no big deal, and CHL is a valuable contributor.
JOHN COLLISON [
Ludraman] 10:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I admire the user and his work, however, he does not currently meet my
personal standards for admin candidates.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 22:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mine either. User is short on edits, very short on edits for a self-nom, and recent edits have been extremely minor – adding categories and image tags, voting on VfD. No, I'd not consider until he performs more significant contributions and that he can convince someone to nominate him. --
Netoholic@ 01:55, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
User has less than 100 (questionable)
edits. Probable
sock puppet. --
Netoholic@ 04:41, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Neutral
Geogre 02:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) My "personal standard" is about time on project, rather than edits, and that's mainly so that I can see whether a person has interacted with some of the nasties and, uh, committed people we have on Wikipedia (and some of them are administrators). So far, I've seen Luke to be an even tempered person and a quality editor. I lean toward support, but I would like to hear about the things that he's seen that have bugged him. ("We can dress like Minnie Pearl." I do get them confused with King Missile sometimes.) ("Sometimes nothing's a pretty cool hand.")
Geogre 02:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ask what bugs me, eh? Heh. I think one thing that scares me is when people rapidly create new articles. Although I initially loved the idea of bot creation, and even proposed writing one somewhere in my history (I'm a competent perl scripter, as witnessed by my reports for the
Latter Day Saint WikiProject), I dislike mass-created articles because they're unlikely to be on anyone's watchlist. As this is our best tool against vandalism, mass creation—by bots or humans—disturbs me. Doubly so when the articles are stubs or worse. Although I have a long-term eventualist outlook and am probably slightly more inclusionist than the current VfD environment, I think awful articles do reflect badly on the project and draw trolls. (Unstated assumption: I dislike trolls.)
Cool HandLuke 03:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For a more concrete example: GNAA drives me nuts, but they have as much right as anyone else to be here. They just don't have the right to own the place through intimidation, and in so far as they don't attempt to, the content of articles can be forged through consensus. I've been fortunate not to cross the paths of anyone so dedicated, but if good faith efforts were to fail, I would certainly hope all wikipedia editors hold their ground against trolling. | Thanks for the insider quotes, by the way!
Cool HandLuke 03:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comments
1055 edits since February 7. --
Grunt🇪🇺 01:25, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
Neither support nor oppose for now, but may I point out that he can't be all that bad because he contributed to
Dead Milkmen. Thanks. -
Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. The original content in Dead Milkmen was my first contribution—as an anon. I registered and copyedited minutes after.
I must also say that I find nothing wrong with Blankfaze's personal standards. Everyone presumably has them, whether they're stated or not. Blankfaze's standards are no more or less arbitrary than any others, and they do have some logic to them. They're at least not obviously shoddy reasons. I also think that Blankfaze in particular opposes good editors in the most encouraging way possible. His compliment inspires me to keep up the good work however this nomination turns out.
In the interest of full disclosure, here are some of my recent extremely minor edits:
[1][2][3].
Cool Hand Luke(Communicate!) 04:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To directly address Netoholic's concerns, my image tag edits are actually uploads (see some of my uploaded images at
User:Cool Hand Luke/Photos). Unlike
some wikipedians, I think it's important to document the source of images. This is paramount if we're to have a free encyclopedia. I often improve articles under consideration on VfD (see
Rhosnesni High School,
Black Lotus,
Springville High School, and
Incorporation—which I mostly don't list on my user page because they're not my best work, just fix-ups). I do feel that I have substantive contributions. I've contributed significantly to at least 40 full articles, as listed on my user page. Some are very large (see
Father Divine). And this does not count many lesser fix-ups like when I
consolidate and expand substubs. In short, I'm unsure why Netoholic characterized me as he has, but it's unsurprising because he apparently took quite a cursory look at my work. He initially claimed I'd done little since my last RfA which is facinating because I've never had an RfA before.
Cool Hand Luke(Communicate!) 18:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow. You could have politely just said that you respectfully disagree with me, and explain the flaw in my reasoning, but instead launched into a tirade against my character? Is this what we can expect from you as an admin? For your information, in both cases you mentioned above, which were simple errors on my part, I corrected myself (by noting the
possible copyright problem with the Einstein image and by removing the mistaken
reference to a previous RFA). Making derisive comments is not a good way to handle yourself, and now I can add incivility to my reasons not to support. --
Netoholic@ 19:17, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
I honestly didn't mean to assualt your character. I'm sorry. But you certainly know that adding image information is important. One can't simply abandon uploads, and that's why I found your criticism odd. The RfA note doesn't speak to your character, but to your apparent unfamiliarity with my contributions.
Cool Hand Luke(Communicate!) 22:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. VfD resolution and speedy deletions are extentions of things I already do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I enjoy adding content which was not previously on the internet. I believe the best example of this is my biography on
Father Divine. Typically my contributions are related to the Latter Day Saint movement and/or Salt Lake City. For more characteristic contributions see
Book of Commandments,
LDS Conference Center, and
Salt Lake City and County Building. I feel all of these articles go into more useful consolidated detail than was previously available online.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
I decided to self nominate because I just resolved a week-dead VfD at
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pauper magic. It occurred to me that I'm not sure whether it's kosher for non-admins to do that. If not, it seems more admins are needed because VfD often takes some time to get resolved after the voting period has expired. For another example see
Sega Genesis Screenshot Gallery.
At any rate, I have about 1050 edits, with good variety: added content (see my user page/brag list), copy edits, recategorizations, VfD, talk pages, and the creation of a new
Latter Day Saint WikiProject, although the last has yet to prove its worth.
At any rate, I'd like to be an admin for VfD resolution and speedy deletion. VfD and new pages are my hobbies when bored.
Yes. Seems Cool Head Luke and business-like. Haven't personally seen him under fireDealt with him amicably on
Reformed Egyptian; I imagine he is good at staying cool.
Tom -
Talk 18:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm extremely happy to support Cool Hand Luke here. He's a great user and has helped out a lot with a whole bunch of topics.
Cookiecaper 08:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yup. Adminship is no big deal, and CHL is a valuable contributor.
JOHN COLLISON [
Ludraman] 10:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I admire the user and his work, however, he does not currently meet my
personal standards for admin candidates.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 22:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mine either. User is short on edits, very short on edits for a self-nom, and recent edits have been extremely minor – adding categories and image tags, voting on VfD. No, I'd not consider until he performs more significant contributions and that he can convince someone to nominate him. --
Netoholic@ 01:55, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
User has less than 100 (questionable)
edits. Probable
sock puppet. --
Netoholic@ 04:41, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Neutral
Geogre 02:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) My "personal standard" is about time on project, rather than edits, and that's mainly so that I can see whether a person has interacted with some of the nasties and, uh, committed people we have on Wikipedia (and some of them are administrators). So far, I've seen Luke to be an even tempered person and a quality editor. I lean toward support, but I would like to hear about the things that he's seen that have bugged him. ("We can dress like Minnie Pearl." I do get them confused with King Missile sometimes.) ("Sometimes nothing's a pretty cool hand.")
Geogre 02:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ask what bugs me, eh? Heh. I think one thing that scares me is when people rapidly create new articles. Although I initially loved the idea of bot creation, and even proposed writing one somewhere in my history (I'm a competent perl scripter, as witnessed by my reports for the
Latter Day Saint WikiProject), I dislike mass-created articles because they're unlikely to be on anyone's watchlist. As this is our best tool against vandalism, mass creation—by bots or humans—disturbs me. Doubly so when the articles are stubs or worse. Although I have a long-term eventualist outlook and am probably slightly more inclusionist than the current VfD environment, I think awful articles do reflect badly on the project and draw trolls. (Unstated assumption: I dislike trolls.)
Cool HandLuke 03:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For a more concrete example: GNAA drives me nuts, but they have as much right as anyone else to be here. They just don't have the right to own the place through intimidation, and in so far as they don't attempt to, the content of articles can be forged through consensus. I've been fortunate not to cross the paths of anyone so dedicated, but if good faith efforts were to fail, I would certainly hope all wikipedia editors hold their ground against trolling. | Thanks for the insider quotes, by the way!
Cool HandLuke 03:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comments
1055 edits since February 7. --
Grunt🇪🇺 01:25, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
Neither support nor oppose for now, but may I point out that he can't be all that bad because he contributed to
Dead Milkmen. Thanks. -
Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. The original content in Dead Milkmen was my first contribution—as an anon. I registered and copyedited minutes after.
I must also say that I find nothing wrong with Blankfaze's personal standards. Everyone presumably has them, whether they're stated or not. Blankfaze's standards are no more or less arbitrary than any others, and they do have some logic to them. They're at least not obviously shoddy reasons. I also think that Blankfaze in particular opposes good editors in the most encouraging way possible. His compliment inspires me to keep up the good work however this nomination turns out.
In the interest of full disclosure, here are some of my recent extremely minor edits:
[1][2][3].
Cool Hand Luke(Communicate!) 04:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To directly address Netoholic's concerns, my image tag edits are actually uploads (see some of my uploaded images at
User:Cool Hand Luke/Photos). Unlike
some wikipedians, I think it's important to document the source of images. This is paramount if we're to have a free encyclopedia. I often improve articles under consideration on VfD (see
Rhosnesni High School,
Black Lotus,
Springville High School, and
Incorporation—which I mostly don't list on my user page because they're not my best work, just fix-ups). I do feel that I have substantive contributions. I've contributed significantly to at least 40 full articles, as listed on my user page. Some are very large (see
Father Divine). And this does not count many lesser fix-ups like when I
consolidate and expand substubs. In short, I'm unsure why Netoholic characterized me as he has, but it's unsurprising because he apparently took quite a cursory look at my work. He initially claimed I'd done little since my last RfA which is facinating because I've never had an RfA before.
Cool Hand Luke(Communicate!) 18:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow. You could have politely just said that you respectfully disagree with me, and explain the flaw in my reasoning, but instead launched into a tirade against my character? Is this what we can expect from you as an admin? For your information, in both cases you mentioned above, which were simple errors on my part, I corrected myself (by noting the
possible copyright problem with the Einstein image and by removing the mistaken
reference to a previous RFA). Making derisive comments is not a good way to handle yourself, and now I can add incivility to my reasons not to support. --
Netoholic@ 19:17, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
I honestly didn't mean to assualt your character. I'm sorry. But you certainly know that adding image information is important. One can't simply abandon uploads, and that's why I found your criticism odd. The RfA note doesn't speak to your character, but to your apparent unfamiliarity with my contributions.
Cool Hand Luke(Communicate!) 22:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. VfD resolution and speedy deletions are extentions of things I already do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I enjoy adding content which was not previously on the internet. I believe the best example of this is my biography on
Father Divine. Typically my contributions are related to the Latter Day Saint movement and/or Salt Lake City. For more characteristic contributions see
Book of Commandments,
LDS Conference Center, and
Salt Lake City and County Building. I feel all of these articles go into more useful consolidated detail than was previously available online.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?