I have had the pleasure to work with Urhixidur on a number of articles. I think he has a good understanding of how a Wikipedia article should look, and he works toward building a concensus. From what I have seen, he has a good scientific background, and makes some good factual fixes to articles, in addition to his copious minor edits. --
Doradus 03:13, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Accepted, thank you for the nomination. (
Urhixidur 04:27, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC))
Support
Pleasure to be the first vote. Lots of very helpful edits, good communication, and I like the answers to the candidate questions. --
Netoholic@ 16:45, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I nominated him. Does that make my vote redundant? --
Doradus 20:33, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
A. Deletions as needed, vandal watch (which I'm already doing), maybe some interface touch-ups, IP blocking. We'll see how it goes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I wastedspent a lot of time hunting down the full names of asteroid discoverers for the
List of asteroids entries. The
conversion of units numerical factors. The
Template:Minor Planet is my doing, too. Why those? Factual accuracy —which is what encyclopaedias are supposed to be for. I'm obsessive-compulsive that way.
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?
A.
User:Neutrality has bugged me a few times, editing rather brusquely some pages and turning a deaf ear to Talk aimed at him. I'll have to try harder. A rational explanation, references to established Wiki policies (which sometimes differ across languages, oddly) help in building consensus. Sometimes alternate solutions must be found (some users want flag images with borders, for example —so I suggest they upload a second image, appropriately named).
I have had the pleasure to work with Urhixidur on a number of articles. I think he has a good understanding of how a Wikipedia article should look, and he works toward building a concensus. From what I have seen, he has a good scientific background, and makes some good factual fixes to articles, in addition to his copious minor edits. --
Doradus 03:13, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Accepted, thank you for the nomination. (
Urhixidur 04:27, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC))
Support
Pleasure to be the first vote. Lots of very helpful edits, good communication, and I like the answers to the candidate questions. --
Netoholic@ 16:45, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I nominated him. Does that make my vote redundant? --
Doradus 20:33, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
A. Deletions as needed, vandal watch (which I'm already doing), maybe some interface touch-ups, IP blocking. We'll see how it goes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I wastedspent a lot of time hunting down the full names of asteroid discoverers for the
List of asteroids entries. The
conversion of units numerical factors. The
Template:Minor Planet is my doing, too. Why those? Factual accuracy —which is what encyclopaedias are supposed to be for. I'm obsessive-compulsive that way.
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?
A.
User:Neutrality has bugged me a few times, editing rather brusquely some pages and turning a deaf ear to Talk aimed at him. I'll have to try harder. A rational explanation, references to established Wiki policies (which sometimes differ across languages, oddly) help in building consensus. Sometimes alternate solutions must be found (some users want flag images with borders, for example —so I suggest they upload a second image, appropriately named).