Final (12/37/6) Ended 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Malber ( talk · contribs) – Malber has been around for quite a while and I've found him to be a good editor, always working hard to improve the encyclopedia. Anomo 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
I'd like to take the time to comment on the oft mentioned, allegedly "bad faith" nominations for deletion; you missed two: Magic: The Gathering people and Olivier and Antoine Ruel. Ohnoes! They got deleted anyway; maybe they weren't bad faith after all!
The successful nomination for deletion of the Roy St. Clair article brought to bear the question: Are ccg players notable enough for inclusion? I opened up the debate on the articles of the top Magic: The Gathering players as a way to test whether or not there is true consensus that being a top rated ccg player is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The results of this helped expand the critera of WP:BIO to include competitors in a noteworthy activity. Those that think the AfDs were retailatory or that a nomination for deletion is somehow an attack on the article or subject seriously misunderstand the AfD process. As a result of the crucible of AfD these articles saw much improvement. The Mike Long article in particular benefitted by the removal of a lot of unsourced derogatory material, bringing it up to a better standard under WP:BLP. I still think that the articles lack citations from more than one non-trivial third party source, but enough people seem to want them to stay. I notice that no one voting oppose who cited these nominations as a reason to oppose bothered post a question about them. I question the good faith of these votes.
About the {{ lame}} thing, srsly, if you took your edit war too seriously, you could have removed the template from the talk page. I put it on the talk page for Christianity and didn't hear a peep from them, but I did hear it from a Stargate fanboy. If you look at the template (which is archived at the talk page for WP:LAME) you'll see that it calls on editors to not edit war and to remain WP:COOL.
-- Malber ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Final (12/37/6) Ended 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Malber ( talk · contribs) – Malber has been around for quite a while and I've found him to be a good editor, always working hard to improve the encyclopedia. Anomo 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
I'd like to take the time to comment on the oft mentioned, allegedly "bad faith" nominations for deletion; you missed two: Magic: The Gathering people and Olivier and Antoine Ruel. Ohnoes! They got deleted anyway; maybe they weren't bad faith after all!
The successful nomination for deletion of the Roy St. Clair article brought to bear the question: Are ccg players notable enough for inclusion? I opened up the debate on the articles of the top Magic: The Gathering players as a way to test whether or not there is true consensus that being a top rated ccg player is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The results of this helped expand the critera of WP:BIO to include competitors in a noteworthy activity. Those that think the AfDs were retailatory or that a nomination for deletion is somehow an attack on the article or subject seriously misunderstand the AfD process. As a result of the crucible of AfD these articles saw much improvement. The Mike Long article in particular benefitted by the removal of a lot of unsourced derogatory material, bringing it up to a better standard under WP:BLP. I still think that the articles lack citations from more than one non-trivial third party source, but enough people seem to want them to stay. I notice that no one voting oppose who cited these nominations as a reason to oppose bothered post a question about them. I question the good faith of these votes.
About the {{ lame}} thing, srsly, if you took your edit war too seriously, you could have removed the template from the talk page. I put it on the talk page for Christianity and didn't hear a peep from them, but I did hear it from a Stargate fanboy. If you look at the template (which is archived at the talk page for WP:LAME) you'll see that it calls on editors to not edit war and to remain WP:COOL.
-- Malber ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Support
Oppose
Neutral