I´ve recently put fair use tags in all images I uploaded since I joined Wikipedia, a project of which I am enthusiast.
I´ve been here for quite some time, as well.
Doidimais Brasil 00:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
This user has done some great work on the articles he created (see above). I have two reasons for opposing: 1) Low edit count. I don't expect a user to have 4000 edits before RfA, but I would like to see more than his current 425. 2) Lack of experience dealing with controversial situations. I took a look at
Talk:Olavo de Carvalho and wasn't very impressed with the comments in the "Author here" section. I'd prefer that WP admins didn't end comments with "Thanks, morons".
Carrp |
Talk 00:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Quick check of his talk comments: Most seem to be OK, but the
Talk:Olavo de Carvalho mentioned by Carrp is not so hot. In any case, there are not enough edits --
Chris 73Talk 00:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Great user, but he hasn't made enough edits. As much as I hate edit number standards, I have to oppose this user. However, if you come back later with more edits, I would definitely support you.
Bart133(t) 03:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a huge edit counter, but I expect more than 425 edits from a prospective admin. I will most likely support when the user has more experience, both in terms of edit number and interaction with the community. --
Rje 04:29, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not enought experience yet, sorry. --
Slowking Man 08:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I can see you've been around for a while, but I don't see a consistent level of dedication to the project during that time (there are significant gaps in time between some of your contributions). I do not consider this to be
characteristic of a good admin. --
Grunt🇪🇺 18:10, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
--
Lst27(talk) 22:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sorry. I oppose, for several reasons:
Not enough experience. I expect people to have at least 1,200 edits before requesting adminship.
Not enough edit summaries.
When he nominated himself, he put the nomination in the "nominations" section (instead of the "self nominations" section), and I had to move it.
He linked this page wrong and forgot to change the username. '''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName|action=edit}} Vote here] (0/6/0) ending 21:51 [[14 January]] [[2005]] (UTC)'''
I don't like the "Thanks, morons" comment. I may support later but definitely not this time.
JuntungWu 17:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not yet --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 02:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agree with above.
Neutralitytalk 06:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Never. Many of your contributions are of very doubtful usefulness (I still remember "Quarto do Chefinho" from VfD) and you fail at the task of placing a simple image on an article (
The Underdog Project). Strong opposition. --
Sn0wflake 16:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I base my decision on JuntungWu's comment about skills (below). --
Ryan! |
Talk 17:29, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Not enough experience.
ugen64 06:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't like the comment about "enhancing my skills". Sysops are supposed to have the skills required ready, not the other way round.
JuntungWu 17:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
By the way I just noticed that the end date is wrong; it should be February not January.
JuntungWu 17:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Helping new people in figuring out what they can do - and what´s to do - in Wikipedia; being able to edit polemical pages such as
Olavo de Carvalho, which I created originally; quickly reverting pages where I see vandalism, such as
World War II and
Cold War.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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?
Finding out
Olavo de Carvalho had been protected really pissed me off (check the page´s discussion). But it´s over now and I´ll always discuss a change I believe is controversial before actually editing an article.
I´ve recently put fair use tags in all images I uploaded since I joined Wikipedia, a project of which I am enthusiast.
I´ve been here for quite some time, as well.
Doidimais Brasil 00:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
This user has done some great work on the articles he created (see above). I have two reasons for opposing: 1) Low edit count. I don't expect a user to have 4000 edits before RfA, but I would like to see more than his current 425. 2) Lack of experience dealing with controversial situations. I took a look at
Talk:Olavo de Carvalho and wasn't very impressed with the comments in the "Author here" section. I'd prefer that WP admins didn't end comments with "Thanks, morons".
Carrp |
Talk 00:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Quick check of his talk comments: Most seem to be OK, but the
Talk:Olavo de Carvalho mentioned by Carrp is not so hot. In any case, there are not enough edits --
Chris 73Talk 00:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Great user, but he hasn't made enough edits. As much as I hate edit number standards, I have to oppose this user. However, if you come back later with more edits, I would definitely support you.
Bart133(t) 03:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a huge edit counter, but I expect more than 425 edits from a prospective admin. I will most likely support when the user has more experience, both in terms of edit number and interaction with the community. --
Rje 04:29, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not enought experience yet, sorry. --
Slowking Man 08:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I can see you've been around for a while, but I don't see a consistent level of dedication to the project during that time (there are significant gaps in time between some of your contributions). I do not consider this to be
characteristic of a good admin. --
Grunt🇪🇺 18:10, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
--
Lst27(talk) 22:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sorry. I oppose, for several reasons:
Not enough experience. I expect people to have at least 1,200 edits before requesting adminship.
Not enough edit summaries.
When he nominated himself, he put the nomination in the "nominations" section (instead of the "self nominations" section), and I had to move it.
He linked this page wrong and forgot to change the username. '''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName|action=edit}} Vote here] (0/6/0) ending 21:51 [[14 January]] [[2005]] (UTC)'''
I don't like the "Thanks, morons" comment. I may support later but definitely not this time.
JuntungWu 17:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not yet --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 02:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agree with above.
Neutralitytalk 06:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Never. Many of your contributions are of very doubtful usefulness (I still remember "Quarto do Chefinho" from VfD) and you fail at the task of placing a simple image on an article (
The Underdog Project). Strong opposition. --
Sn0wflake 16:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I base my decision on JuntungWu's comment about skills (below). --
Ryan! |
Talk 17:29, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Not enough experience.
ugen64 06:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't like the comment about "enhancing my skills". Sysops are supposed to have the skills required ready, not the other way round.
JuntungWu 17:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
By the way I just noticed that the end date is wrong; it should be February not January.
JuntungWu 17:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Helping new people in figuring out what they can do - and what´s to do - in Wikipedia; being able to edit polemical pages such as
Olavo de Carvalho, which I created originally; quickly reverting pages where I see vandalism, such as
World War II and
Cold War.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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?
Finding out
Olavo de Carvalho had been protected really pissed me off (check the page´s discussion). But it´s over now and I´ll always discuss a change I believe is controversial before actually editing an article.