Craigy has been here since the end of October 2004 and has done a great deal of work on the spoken Wikipedia, on image tagging, providing usable images, writing peerage-related articles and welcoming new users. He is a fellow member of the Club of UK Wikipedians known to have edited past 3:30 AM. I think he would benefit from adminship in his image work and with his permission I'm nominating him.
David |
Talk 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
I accept this nomination and thanks David; it's nice to know one's contributions are generally well-liked.
Craigy (
talk) June 28, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Support
Let me be the first to support, pending Craigy's acceptance of the nomination. Any British Wikipedian who stays up till 5am to get specific tasks done (a man after my own heart) is good for the job. --
Francs2000 |
Talk 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
Support, although i've edited part 4:30AM once or twice.
Hedley 30 June 2005 21:31 (UTC)
Support. Useful and reasonable contributor, should make a good admin. (Supporting despite his following the alarming trend of adding symbols to signatures.) -
Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:49 (UTC)
Blimey!. What's with all the British Wikipedians who insist on having a flag or coat of arms in their signatures? Oh well. Support anyway. --
TenOfAllTrades(
talk) 1 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral. Just falls short of the required nine months of contributions for me to give a support vote.
Denelson83 3 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
Comments
Kate's Tools appears to be down for the Mediawiki 1.5 update but my calculation is that Craigy144 has 3,320 edits right now: 1,834/43 to main namespace, 120/397 to User, 110/6 to Wikipedia, 670/0 to Image, 119/3 to Template and 18/0 to Category.
David |
Talk 28 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A CryptoDerk's tool is a godsend and although I haven't used it lately, I do intend to watch recent edits and revert vandalism once I've sorted through the whole of
Category:Images with unknown source and the rollback feature would be helpful. As an admin, I'd like to add spoken files (where needed) to the Wikipedia guideline pages which are protected.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Although
John Kenney did most of the work, I was quite chuffed at sorting through the peerage articles and putting them in smaller categories as opposed to the broader
Category:Peers. I'm also quite impressed with how
WP:WSW is developing and the files I've added.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Not really. I suppose the biggest edit war-"ette" was at
Alexandra of Denmark over the placement of a table
here but me and the other user came to a compromise. I wasn't particularly pleased about
this edit but unless there is a drastic change in an article, I won't worry about it and I'd probably visit any article, where my changes have been reverted, in a few weeks and see how it could be bettered from there.
Craigy has been here since the end of October 2004 and has done a great deal of work on the spoken Wikipedia, on image tagging, providing usable images, writing peerage-related articles and welcoming new users. He is a fellow member of the Club of UK Wikipedians known to have edited past 3:30 AM. I think he would benefit from adminship in his image work and with his permission I'm nominating him.
David |
Talk 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
I accept this nomination and thanks David; it's nice to know one's contributions are generally well-liked.
Craigy (
talk) June 28, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Support
Let me be the first to support, pending Craigy's acceptance of the nomination. Any British Wikipedian who stays up till 5am to get specific tasks done (a man after my own heart) is good for the job. --
Francs2000 |
Talk 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
Support, although i've edited part 4:30AM once or twice.
Hedley 30 June 2005 21:31 (UTC)
Support. Useful and reasonable contributor, should make a good admin. (Supporting despite his following the alarming trend of adding symbols to signatures.) -
Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:49 (UTC)
Blimey!. What's with all the British Wikipedians who insist on having a flag or coat of arms in their signatures? Oh well. Support anyway. --
TenOfAllTrades(
talk) 1 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral. Just falls short of the required nine months of contributions for me to give a support vote.
Denelson83 3 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
Comments
Kate's Tools appears to be down for the Mediawiki 1.5 update but my calculation is that Craigy144 has 3,320 edits right now: 1,834/43 to main namespace, 120/397 to User, 110/6 to Wikipedia, 670/0 to Image, 119/3 to Template and 18/0 to Category.
David |
Talk 28 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A CryptoDerk's tool is a godsend and although I haven't used it lately, I do intend to watch recent edits and revert vandalism once I've sorted through the whole of
Category:Images with unknown source and the rollback feature would be helpful. As an admin, I'd like to add spoken files (where needed) to the Wikipedia guideline pages which are protected.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Although
John Kenney did most of the work, I was quite chuffed at sorting through the peerage articles and putting them in smaller categories as opposed to the broader
Category:Peers. I'm also quite impressed with how
WP:WSW is developing and the files I've added.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Not really. I suppose the biggest edit war-"ette" was at
Alexandra of Denmark over the placement of a table
here but me and the other user came to a compromise. I wasn't particularly pleased about
this edit but unless there is a drastic change in an article, I won't worry about it and I'd probably visit any article, where my changes have been reverted, in a few weeks and see how it could be bettered from there.