THWAAA. A very constructive editor who has contributed some excellent articles.
Dbiv 16:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support I don't really think that sparsely using edit summaries should keep anyone from being an admin, especially such a strong editor.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Needs to give more edit summaries.
Lst27(talk) 00:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments
I'll very likely vote to support, but I would like to see the nomination accepted and the questions answered first.
Carrp |
Talk 17:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He accepted to me prior to the negotiation on his talk page, as I note above. I've just posted a further note telling him that I actually nominated him.
johnk 19:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. Like other candidates I aim to help with the general problems of reverting vandalism, providing protection and dealing with difficult IP addresses. I'd also aim to specifically help in the area of naming conventions in helping ensure articles conform to them and, where necessary, perform the admins required to ensure compliance.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I guess that
Neville Chamberlain is probably the long article I'm pleased with the most - there's a lot more information about Chamberlain's entire career rather than the usual overheavy focus on his European policy. Of the shorter articles
George Canning is one I feel works better now than before. I've also been happy to get stub pages up for a lot of inter-war British politicians, making a better flow for the navi boxes.
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. The main editing conflicts I've had was a while ago and revolved around the list of leaders of the
Conservative Party (UK) and exactly who if anyone was "Leader of the [overall] party" - we resolved that harmoniusly by switching the format and copying the one for the
Liberal Party (UK). Otherwise my main irritation is when people start changing the placement of peers in categories on the spurious argument "we list people by names not positions" when most are known by their title which is part of the name. I've reverted a few here (and others have done the same) and will do so again when it leads to a strange category placing.