James has been here more than one year now, and has been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia. His own articles have mostly focused on topics related to
Western Canada and
Ukrainian-
Canadians. He has also made solid contributions to two articles which are now featured,
Louis Riel and
Niagara Falls. I would characterise him as a relatively uncontroversial editor's editor dedicated to NPOV, who tackles vandalism whenever it crops up and who will make responsible use of the janitor's mop.
Edit counts.
Fawcett513:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Glad to see a good editor that takes on canadian issues. Wiki can always use more responsible admins.
Sasquatch′↔
Talk↔
Contributions 23:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support. No previous familiarity with this user, but since edit counts are a very poor indicator of trustworthiness, I reviewed his edit history. Every edit I saw was good faith and I saw many very positive contributions. We are here to write an encyclopedia, so content creation is to be encouraged. That said, I also see enough community interaction and a pattern of editing that reflects a user worthy of the extra trust, which is what is important for Adminship anyway. -
TaxmanTalk 20:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Support -- he's answering my questions about page deletion...I figure I either have to support him or resign in disgrace. :-) Seriously, in my experience he seems very calm, intelligent, and likely to do well in this role.
Jwrosenzweig05:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support -- Long time contributor, good editor. Number of edits is proportional to quality of work, prefer better quality over high edit count.
∞Who?¿?21:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, I am persuaded out of neutrality. (And I've moved my previous comments down to the 'comments' section.) -
Splash22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, excellent contributor. -
SimonP 23:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Impressive article-space edits, and an indication that you will help close out VfD discussions can only be a Good Thing™.
android79 01:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Definitely. He's helped me out on RC patrol, and looks like he's highly qualified in the other areas as well. —
Knowledge Seekerদ 04:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support adminship will be a plus in his already remarkable fight on vandalism.-
Poli (
talk •
contribs) 14:20, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
Oppose
Weak Oppose. Not because he voted as such for me, but I have to agree with Splash below on the 1800 edits over a year. That's terribly inactive. I made that much in about 3 weeks. Step it up a bit.
Redwolf2404:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think Boothy adds a bit of local colour to the "meh, no big deal"/"what, they're not one already?!?" RfAs... :) No vote yet, I will have to think this over... as I do with everyone as a matter of fact.
GarrettTalk10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral
I'm of two minds. 1) James has contributed greatly to many articles and he is keen to improve on existing articles or create new articles. 2) However, if he becomes admin, does that mean he'll be sucked into the black hole that is Wikipedia and I'll never see my fiance again? :)
CWood01:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)reply
"...and they Vfd'd happily ever after..." ...awww... :) I wish my fiance was interested in Wikipedia... wait, what am I saying, I don't even HAVE a fiance yet! *sniffs* :(
GarrettTalk10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)reply
'm struggling to decide. Editcountitis can be fatal, but 1800 over the course of a year isn't all that many. But, they are pretty constant i.e. he hasn't only just started making edits. He does participate in VfD, and has done some rescues from there and thus would probably be clear enough on how that sort of thing works. Nothing in TfD/CfD/etc but they're backwaters by comparison to VfD anyway. However, all of Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: and User talk: space edits together total only 237 (and a number of those are recent RfA votes), which is too few for me really. But there's the decent edits and the RC patrol that appears in his (sub-2000 entries long) contributions list. So I'll listen to the debate and then decide. I have now changed my vote from neutral to support.-
Splash22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. The most useful aspect will be to revert vandalism. Also, I expect that I will help clean up results of votes such as
WP:VFD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My favourite is
Maksym Berezovsky. It is one of my earlier articles and I believe that it is the best information available on the web on him. I am also happy with my progress on the
Calgary mayors. I started from the beginning and have made it more than half way down the list. I also really enjoyed working on the
Louis Riel and related articles when getting it to featured status.
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 use Wikipedia as a break from the stress of the real world. I suppose it helps that many of the topics that I write about are not of interest to others. As for the future, I expect that I continue to do the same. If I disagree with someone, I will try to state my case clearly. If we do not reach agreement, I would look to the opinions of others.
James has been here more than one year now, and has been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia. His own articles have mostly focused on topics related to
Western Canada and
Ukrainian-
Canadians. He has also made solid contributions to two articles which are now featured,
Louis Riel and
Niagara Falls. I would characterise him as a relatively uncontroversial editor's editor dedicated to NPOV, who tackles vandalism whenever it crops up and who will make responsible use of the janitor's mop.
Edit counts.
Fawcett513:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Glad to see a good editor that takes on canadian issues. Wiki can always use more responsible admins.
Sasquatch′↔
Talk↔
Contributions 23:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Support. No previous familiarity with this user, but since edit counts are a very poor indicator of trustworthiness, I reviewed his edit history. Every edit I saw was good faith and I saw many very positive contributions. We are here to write an encyclopedia, so content creation is to be encouraged. That said, I also see enough community interaction and a pattern of editing that reflects a user worthy of the extra trust, which is what is important for Adminship anyway. -
TaxmanTalk 20:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Support -- he's answering my questions about page deletion...I figure I either have to support him or resign in disgrace. :-) Seriously, in my experience he seems very calm, intelligent, and likely to do well in this role.
Jwrosenzweig05:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support -- Long time contributor, good editor. Number of edits is proportional to quality of work, prefer better quality over high edit count.
∞Who?¿?21:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, I am persuaded out of neutrality. (And I've moved my previous comments down to the 'comments' section.) -
Splash22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, excellent contributor. -
SimonP 23:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Impressive article-space edits, and an indication that you will help close out VfD discussions can only be a Good Thing™.
android79 01:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Definitely. He's helped me out on RC patrol, and looks like he's highly qualified in the other areas as well. —
Knowledge Seekerদ 04:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support adminship will be a plus in his already remarkable fight on vandalism.-
Poli (
talk •
contribs) 14:20, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
Oppose
Weak Oppose. Not because he voted as such for me, but I have to agree with Splash below on the 1800 edits over a year. That's terribly inactive. I made that much in about 3 weeks. Step it up a bit.
Redwolf2404:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think Boothy adds a bit of local colour to the "meh, no big deal"/"what, they're not one already?!?" RfAs... :) No vote yet, I will have to think this over... as I do with everyone as a matter of fact.
GarrettTalk10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral
I'm of two minds. 1) James has contributed greatly to many articles and he is keen to improve on existing articles or create new articles. 2) However, if he becomes admin, does that mean he'll be sucked into the black hole that is Wikipedia and I'll never see my fiance again? :)
CWood01:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)reply
"...and they Vfd'd happily ever after..." ...awww... :) I wish my fiance was interested in Wikipedia... wait, what am I saying, I don't even HAVE a fiance yet! *sniffs* :(
GarrettTalk10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)reply
'm struggling to decide. Editcountitis can be fatal, but 1800 over the course of a year isn't all that many. But, they are pretty constant i.e. he hasn't only just started making edits. He does participate in VfD, and has done some rescues from there and thus would probably be clear enough on how that sort of thing works. Nothing in TfD/CfD/etc but they're backwaters by comparison to VfD anyway. However, all of Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk: and User talk: space edits together total only 237 (and a number of those are recent RfA votes), which is too few for me really. But there's the decent edits and the RC patrol that appears in his (sub-2000 entries long) contributions list. So I'll listen to the debate and then decide. I have now changed my vote from neutral to support.-
Splash22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. The most useful aspect will be to revert vandalism. Also, I expect that I will help clean up results of votes such as
WP:VFD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My favourite is
Maksym Berezovsky. It is one of my earlier articles and I believe that it is the best information available on the web on him. I am also happy with my progress on the
Calgary mayors. I started from the beginning and have made it more than half way down the list. I also really enjoyed working on the
Louis Riel and related articles when getting it to featured status.
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 use Wikipedia as a break from the stress of the real world. I suppose it helps that many of the topics that I write about are not of interest to others. As for the future, I expect that I continue to do the same. If I disagree with someone, I will try to state my case clearly. If we do not reach agreement, I would look to the opinions of others.