Support for a candidate on RFA should not be on the number of edits. A vandal can have 2000 edits, 500 of which are vandalism. Does that mean he has enough edits "to earn a promotion"?
NSLE(
T+
C+
CVU)08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Also note that of those 7500 edits very few are on talk pages. That might be cause for concern since that is where an admin often needs to interact. in this case it does not stop me voting support but worth n oting none the less.
David D.(Talk)22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Sure thing. Athletics on Wikipedia? That's Punkmorten. Most of athletes-related articles are created by him, great success in CSB. I can only recommend him to other voters. -
Darwinek10:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everything looks pretty good, except there could be a little greater participation in Wikispace talk pages...that's where the policies and guidelines are made.
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 12:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Back in Oct, Punkmorten was asked to start using edit summaries. I skimmed his last 750 edits are so, and they all seem to have edit summaries, which is a great thing and shows the user listens to people's suggestions. Also, he has quite a bit of experience with AfD. --
PS2pcGAMER23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A bit curt sometimes but almost never condescending. Experiance is nothing close to a problem. I've run into him(general term) several times on the Wikipedia namespace and he has over 1000 project edits! He also seems to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Glad to offer my support. --
§Hurricane ERIC§archive -- my dropsonde01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
Mathbot16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I would be most active in the fields concerning the deletion process, where I already spend time. I often do
new pages patrol and check for
speedy deletion candidates, and I participate in
Articles for Deletion where I would help in closing debates. This strikes me as important as the AfD load is increasing. Kate's edit counter reveals that I presently have 868 deleted edits to my name, the vast majority of which are (ex-)articles which I tagged for speedy deletion or AfD. If trusted with the admin tools I promise to use them with care, on obvious candidates only.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. If I should single out one particular article I am proud of, I would say
List of Prime Ministers of Norway. I did not create it, but it used to be an incomplete, inaccurate and confusing list which I spent a good deal of time improving. The same could be said about
List of cities in Norway. Looking at my entire list of contributions, however, I think what really stands out is that I create a lot of new articles, often
countering systemic bias. Unfortunately I haven't really been involved in the
Featured article process, but my stance is that someone has to attend the neglected articles as well. After all I started editing by browsing through
requested articles.
Punkmorten21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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. I have not participated in any
edit war. While a couple of edits have caused other users to leave comments on
my talk page, in those cases I have decided not to take the editing any further. I intend to remain calm in the future.
It should also be noted that I have improved my use of edit summaries. A quick check tells us that I have used them in about 999 of my last 1000 edits.
Punkmorten21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support for a candidate on RFA should not be on the number of edits. A vandal can have 2000 edits, 500 of which are vandalism. Does that mean he has enough edits "to earn a promotion"?
NSLE(
T+
C+
CVU)08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Also note that of those 7500 edits very few are on talk pages. That might be cause for concern since that is where an admin often needs to interact. in this case it does not stop me voting support but worth n oting none the less.
David D.(Talk)22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Sure thing. Athletics on Wikipedia? That's Punkmorten. Most of athletes-related articles are created by him, great success in CSB. I can only recommend him to other voters. -
Darwinek10:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everything looks pretty good, except there could be a little greater participation in Wikispace talk pages...that's where the policies and guidelines are made.
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 12:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Back in Oct, Punkmorten was asked to start using edit summaries. I skimmed his last 750 edits are so, and they all seem to have edit summaries, which is a great thing and shows the user listens to people's suggestions. Also, he has quite a bit of experience with AfD. --
PS2pcGAMER23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A bit curt sometimes but almost never condescending. Experiance is nothing close to a problem. I've run into him(general term) several times on the Wikipedia namespace and he has over 1000 project edits! He also seems to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Glad to offer my support. --
§Hurricane ERIC§archive -- my dropsonde01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
Mathbot16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I would be most active in the fields concerning the deletion process, where I already spend time. I often do
new pages patrol and check for
speedy deletion candidates, and I participate in
Articles for Deletion where I would help in closing debates. This strikes me as important as the AfD load is increasing. Kate's edit counter reveals that I presently have 868 deleted edits to my name, the vast majority of which are (ex-)articles which I tagged for speedy deletion or AfD. If trusted with the admin tools I promise to use them with care, on obvious candidates only.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. If I should single out one particular article I am proud of, I would say
List of Prime Ministers of Norway. I did not create it, but it used to be an incomplete, inaccurate and confusing list which I spent a good deal of time improving. The same could be said about
List of cities in Norway. Looking at my entire list of contributions, however, I think what really stands out is that I create a lot of new articles, often
countering systemic bias. Unfortunately I haven't really been involved in the
Featured article process, but my stance is that someone has to attend the neglected articles as well. After all I started editing by browsing through
requested articles.
Punkmorten21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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. I have not participated in any
edit war. While a couple of edits have caused other users to leave comments on
my talk page, in those cases I have decided not to take the editing any further. I intend to remain calm in the future.
It should also be noted that I have improved my use of edit summaries. A quick check tells us that I have used them in about 999 of my last 1000 edits.
Punkmorten21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.