→Oppose: reply |
→Support: expanding on my support |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
#'''Support''' Will be able to learn on the job. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Will be able to learn on the job. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' Although your amount of mainspace edits is rather small in comparison to your total amount of edits, you have 2537 mainspace edits, and [[WP:Admin coaching]] says ''For most editors, around 1000 – 1500 mainspace edits (and a reasonable proportion of all edits) would be a typical minimum [for RfA].'', so I guess you're fine. You also seems to have a good understanding of the policies and guidelines. —[[User:Waterfox|<span style="color: blue;">W<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">aterfox</span></span>]] <span style="color: red;">([[User talk:Waterfox|<span style="color: red;">talk</span>]])</span> 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Although your amount of mainspace edits is rather small in comparison to your total amount of edits, you have 2537 mainspace edits, and [[WP:Admin coaching]] says ''For most editors, around 1000 – 1500 mainspace edits (and a reasonable proportion of all edits) would be a typical minimum [for RfA].'', so I guess you're fine. You also seems to have a good understanding of the policies and guidelines. —[[User:Waterfox|<span style="color: blue;">W<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">aterfox</span></span>]] <span style="color: red;">([[User talk:Waterfox|<span style="color: red;">talk</span>]])</span> 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - good knowledge of content creation, shown by candidate's two created articles; good answers to questions, especially Q7. Also, good knowledge of policy around here, such as demonstrated in [[Talk:Ocean_City,_Maryland#Ocean_City_Surf_Report]] and [[User talk:Pankajraj01#Your edits to Garhwali]]. I note a bit of misapplication of policy, such as [[WP:PROD]]; I also note that [[WP:BELLY|none of us is perfect]].<small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''Active in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia, and accepts positive criticism to improve use of CSD tools. More article creation and contribution to articles would be good in an admin candidate, but seems worthy of the mop and bucket. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''Active in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia, and accepts positive criticism to improve use of CSD tools. More article creation and contribution to articles would be good in an admin candidate, but seems worthy of the mop and bucket. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
#'''Strong Support''' Per answers to questions, I think you'd make a great "mop-wielder". To those who opposed on basis of lack of experience, if being on the project and active for almost three years is "inexperienced," then what ''does'' constitute enough experience to be an admin? '''[[User:2|2]]'''<small> [[User_talk:2|says you]], [[Special:Contributions/2|says two]]</small> 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
#'''Strong Support''' Per answers to questions, I think you'd make a great "mop-wielder". To those who opposed on basis of lack of experience, if being on the project and active for almost three years is "inexperienced," then what ''does'' constitute enough experience to be an admin? '''[[User:2|2]]'''<small> [[User_talk:2|says you]], [[Special:Contributions/2|says two]]</small> 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:01, 10 August 2010
GorillaWarfare
(talk page) (35/17/2); Scheduled to end 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for adminship. I've been a member of Wikipedia for four years and thirteen days, as of today. I used to edit under the username theunicyclegirl, but I lost the password to that account about a year after creating it and had no way of recovering it. I've been using this account since July 28, 2007, and have a verified email account as well as a committed identity to avoid that happening again. However, I should mention that although I have been an editor for a long time, I did not edit incredibly regularly. Most of my edits have been in the past 10 months or so. I tend to be a slightly sporadic editor, mostly because of real life. However, I have almost 6,100 edits on this account, and over 2,200 on theunicyclegirl. I believe I'm ready to have access to the admin tools on Wikipedia. I already have rollback and reviewer rights, and I don't believe I've had any complaints regarding either of those. There are several ways that the admin tools will augment my editing on Wikipedia, which I will detail more completely in the questions below. I do a large amount of vandal patrol (through Huggle, Twinkle, and manually) and I end up reporting vandals to AIV relatively frequently. I also do new page patrol, tagging pages for speedy deletion or cleanup, and marking them as patrolled to help others see what's been patrolled. Lately, I've been spending a lot of time in AfD, where I believe I've been making good contributions. As for actual content editing, I've written several articles. I generally do more gnomish things, however, such as adding infoboxes and reformatting or adding references. As for my editing practices, I'm always civil (and will warn those who are not) and I always use an edit summary.
I would like to point out a blemish or two in my editing history. I made the mistake of leaving my account logged on once, and my brother made this edit to Large Hadron Collider. I was warned for it, and I explained the problem as soon as I noticed it on the warner's page here. However, I trust a blemish like that from October 2008 won't be too much of an issue. Additionally, I've had some CSD tags rejected. The most recent was here on Serwan Baban, because I didn't realize that A7 didn't apply to professors. I have since familiarized myself more thoroughly with the criteria. The editor who declined the SD suggested I submit it to AfD, which I did, but that too was decided as a keep because he is a vice-chancellor of a university. I was unaware of what that position entailed, and I realize I should have researched more before nominating for deletion. However, I hope that my being forthcoming regarding that here will help everyone reviewing this request to realize that I learned a good lesson from the incident and have used it as a reminder to be more careful. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Because much of my current editing revolves around vandalism patrol, I plan to continue patrolling and use my tools to block those who have been sufficiently warned. Additionally, I'll now be able to go through AIV to review the reports there. I will also review speedy deletion tags and delete the article (and salt the page if necessary) or deny the speedy deletion request. I also plan to close discussions at AfD, deciding what the best plan of action is based on the discussion. As for other aspects of adminship, I'm constantly exploring Wikipedia and helping out in new places that interest me. The only tools that I'm unlikely to use are those that allow editing of CSS/Javascript/etc. I'm not very familiar with that type of thing, so I will keep my hands out of there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I would say all of my contributions are helpful to Wikipedia. However, I suppose that my vandal patrol has helped quite a bit. I am quick and quite accurate at reverting and warning vandals. If I make a mistake with my reverts/warnings, I always undo the edits nearly immediately. Additionally, I feel that the articles I have created and/or worked on intensively are also good contributions. I've created the articles Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings (both stage lighting designers) and have made extensive edits to pages such as Lighting instrument and Robert E. Grady. I did heavy-duty cleanup on both of the latter articles. Additionally, my contributions in discussions such as AfD are helpful in deciding whether or not to delete pages. I have also been active in helping out other Wikipedians. I adopted Cremepuff222 quite a while back and helped him improve his editing significantly. Unfortunately, he has since been blocked for sockpuppetry, although that was significantly after the adoption ended, and he certainly did not start using sockpuppets by any suggestion of mine. I also welcome newcomers that I see editing pages and give them suggestions if need be. I always urge them to ask me any questions on my talk page, and when they do so I give detailed responses to try to help as much as possible.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I tend not to get into conflicts too much, as I'm quite civil in my wording. However, there have been several incidents. I recall getting into an edit war a long while ago and eventually having to go to the Admin Noticeboard on edit warring. However, I have been unable to find record of it, as it was a while ago. More recently there was a problem with a user repeatedly removing another user's comment on a talk page. I kept reverting, eventually past 3 reverts. I believe that there wouldn't be a problem, as it was vandalism, but as soon as I realized I had passed three reverts, I immediately stopped reverting. You can see the end conversation here. The reverts occur in this interval. My subsequent handling of the issue is found here. An additional conflict that I became involved in was here, where I stepped in with a Wikiquette alert. It got slightly heated, although less of the anger was directed towards me.
- Additional optional question from Malleus Fatuorum
- 4. The majority of your edits are to user talk pages (46.48%). How do you explain that?
- A: Well, considering the majority of the editing I do on Wikipedia is vandalism patrol, I would imagine it's because of that. I'm diligent about warning vandals when I revert (or Huggle does it for me) so every time I revert a page, it adds a warning to the user's talk page. I presume that the rest of the edits to user talk pages are me helping other users, discussing issues, etc. I'm surprised that it comes out to nearly half of my edits though!
- So would it be fair to say then that the overwhelming majority of your 2,500 or so article edits are straightforward vandalism reversion? That's what the figures seem to be suggesting. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how to answer this question. Yes, I would say that a very good number of them are vandalism reversion. However, I don't know if it would be the overwhelming majority. I'm not sure where I would be able to find that number, short of counting my edits manually, so I really can't answer this quantitatively. I guess the addition I should make is that I don't know what percentage of my talk page edits are warnings or vandalism-related warnings, either. Sorry this is vague, I hope it helps! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- So would it be fair to say then that the overwhelming majority of your 2,500 or so article edits are straightforward vandalism reversion? That's what the figures seem to be suggesting. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- A: Well, considering the majority of the editing I do on Wikipedia is vandalism patrol, I would imagine it's because of that. I'm diligent about warning vandals when I revert (or Huggle does it for me) so every time I revert a page, it adds a warning to the user's talk page. I presume that the rest of the edits to user talk pages are me helping other users, discussing issues, etc. I'm surprised that it comes out to nearly half of my edits though!
- Additional optional questions from White Shadows
- 5. Have you written any Good Articles, Featured Articles, DYKs or Featured Lists or been a major part in promoting any of these types of articles?
- A: No, I have not. As I said above in my introduction, I generally do more gnomish things when it comes to editing articles: adding infoboxes, citations, cleanup, etc. I generally try to support the entire Wikipedia as a whole. Rather than spending a lot of time on an individual article to make it of good article or featured article status, I would generally prefer spend less time on more articles. As for DYKs or FLIs, I have not been involved in those either. They are simply not the type of editing that I prefer to do on Wikipedia.
- 6. Why did you hardly make any edits for over two years after you registered with this account?
- A: I am in school, and when things get busy, I have less free time for Wikipedia, as I am sure is true for everyone. For those two years, I was very busy with academics and with other things outside of school. I did not have much time to spend on a computer, so when I did, it was usually not spent editing Wikipedia. However, I have a bit more free time now, and as you can see I have returned wholeheartedly to editing.
- 7. This is a rather simple question: Why should I support someone who only has just above 6,000 edits and who only reverts vandalism? There are plenty of vandal fighters like J. delanoy, Tide Rolls, and The Thing That Should Not Be (two of which are admins) so "what do you bring to the table"?
- A: Well I don't see why you shouldn't support those three either. I was not of the impression that there were a limited number of administrator positions (for lack of a better descriptor) available. I don't see why it would be possible or negative to have too many vandal fighter administrators. However, I can answer the question about what I bring to the table. I don't know those three editors terribly well (although I have run into Tide Rolls many times while vandal patrolling), so the following qualities are not in comparison to them. I am clearheaded about dealing with vandalism. Even when the editor is being defamatory and uncivil towards me or another editor, I stay calm and civil. I pay very good attention to details: always using an edit summary, always warning vandals, checking for previous warnings, etc. I'm quite familiar with policies and guidelines, which is really helpful in backing up reasoning for why I do things (making reverts, etc.) as well as giving me advice on which decision to make in a difficult situation. I'm also becoming more involved with AfDs, which I really enjoy. If I get access to administrator tools, I will use them to help make deletion decisions there. Additionally, I can be just another helping hand to deal with speedy deletion tags, requests for unblock, the deletion backlog, requests for permission, etc.
- Additional optional questions from wiooiw
- 8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
- A: There are some circumstances in which I would block a user without warning. This is basically outlined in different policies and guidelines, but unapproved bots, spam accounts, public accounts, vandalism-only accounts, open proxies, sockpuppets, users making extreme personal attacks or extreme vandalism, and accounts with usernames that go against the username policy can be blocked without warnings. Accounts that violate the child protection policy should be blocked and reported to the Arbitration Committee, as should some personal attacks. To clarify, an account that is posting spam or vandalism should not be blocked on sight, but a persistent spam- or vandalism-only account can be. This is all outlined on WP:Blocking policy, I believe.
- 9. Would you ever block a user just for the hell of it?
- A: Certainly not. Every block should have a justifiable reason behind it. I would personally hate if an administrator blocked me "just for the hell of it", so I would never do something like that myself.
- Additional optional question from Connormah
- 10. How will you ensure that your brother won't get a hold of your account again and do something like this (or possibly something worse with admin tools, should this succeed)?
- A: Well for one, my brother is about to move out of my house and go on to bigger and better things. Secondly, I have my own computer now that he doesn't have access to. I also am very careful to log out of my account, and my password is secure. I only use the password for Wikipedia, and nothing else.
- Additional optional question from StephenBuxton
- 11. Please can you do the CSD exercised on this page User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises?. You can either post your answers here, or if you think you will take up too much space, create a userfied page and place the link here. Thank you.
- A: I answered the questions here: User:GorillaWarfare/CSD Answers so as to save space on this page.
- Your answers are generally sound, but can I please clarify something? for your answer for User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Malcom Hardee, you say that it is an attack page, but he is a notable person and so you would create it. If you have found out he exists, are you certain it was an attack page? Stephen! Coming... 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a clever CSD exercise! I've changed my response accordingly. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why, thank you... flattery will get you support! Rewriting is definitely positive but here a simple redirect would be sufficient, as the title of the article is a typo. Stephen! Coming... 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I assumed we were assuming the current article doesn't exist. And thanks for pointing out the typo! I didn't catch that. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 16:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why, thank you... flattery will get you support! Rewriting is definitely positive but here a simple redirect would be sufficient, as the title of the article is a typo. Stephen! Coming... 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a clever CSD exercise! I've changed my response accordingly. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your answers are generally sound, but can I please clarify something? for your answer for User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Malcom Hardee, you say that it is an attack page, but he is a notable person and so you would create it. If you have found out he exists, are you certain it was an attack page? Stephen! Coming... 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- A: I answered the questions here: User:GorillaWarfare/CSD Answers so as to save space on this page.
- Additional optional question from OlEnglish
- 12. As a follow-up to question #6, are you still in school? Are you done now or at some point in the future will you again be too busy for Wikipedia?
- A: I am still in school, yes. However, other things have changed to allow me to have more free time for editing. As you can see from my editing history, my editing has been relatively strong since late October of last year. Much of the time between then and now was during the school year, but I still found time to edit. I plan to continue to do so through the rest of my schooling as well.
- Additional optional question from Paul Erik
- 13. A follow-up to question #11: For a couple of the CSD exercises, you've written something like "I would delete the page, saying he's a non-notable person." If that's the case, what is your understanding of why WP:NOTCSD #5 states that "notability" is a non-criterion? To put it another way, how important do you believe the distinction is between "non-notable" and "no indication of significance"?
- A: Well, I wouldn't say that it's saying it's a non-criterion. I see that as saying that if the article gives an indication of significance, it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion. For example, the Athur the Great article made no assertions to significance. Wizzy Wig was a little fuzzier, but I'd say still didn't. Basically the distinction I get from that is that if something is non-notable, it's a more or less permanent deal. Articles making indications of significance are different. It's more temporary. Something can be notable, but have no indication of significance in the article. For example, I'll use the Malcom Hardee article. That article has no indication of significance. However, Malcolm Hardee is notable, and assertions of significance could easily be found. So basically, what I think that non-criterion is saying is that if an article seems non-notable, but makes claims that it is, it can't be speedily deleted. I feel like it's a pretty big distinction -- one is fixable, one is not.
General comments
- Links for GorillaWarfare: GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for GorillaWarfare can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.
Discussion
I picked three articles from this list of the articles the candidate has significantly edited under this user name. Two of them appear to have 0 edits by this user. Miniature bull terrier, York Chocolate cat. (They both have edits under the old user name.) I assume I have to be missing something. Am I? Townlake (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry! I must have put those in the wrong location -- those edits were all from around the time when I switched accounts, so I probably just forgot. Thanks for catching that! Porcelaine is also the same way. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note their 2000+ edits under former account User:Theunicyclegirl as well as their recently filed editor review. Airplaneman ✈ 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding question 4: 46.48% is not a majority, though it is a plurality. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Support
- Support Clearly we're getting stupid now in terms of admin requirements. Solid stub with refs. Understands policy, Owns their mistakes. Now, I think there are a few areas that you could develop on, but I'm assuming form the answers to Q1-Q3 you're hardly going to go crazy with the tools. Pedro : Chat 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well perhaps some of us are. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some of you are assuming the candidate will go crazy with the tools? Or that some people are getting stupid in terms of requirements? Or both? Pedro : Chat 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- You demonstrate to me how administrators who basically have done nothing but vandalism reversion can have their toolbelt removed if they cock up when they branch out into other areas of "janitorial" activity, such as blocking established editors, and I may join you in your best of all possible worlds. Until then ... Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some of you are assuming the candidate will go crazy with the tools? Or that some people are getting stupid in terms of requirements? Or both? Pedro : Chat 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well perhaps some of us are. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Pedro and largely as a protest against any suggestion that a candidate needs to be at all familiar with RFA before becoming an admin. Tactically, it is a good idea. But there is no reason for its relevance to suitability for the tools. Taking this approach risks casting aside good candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I should add that I do like the frank and thoughtful answers to the questions. I agree with WSC and Doc Quintana's reasons for not supporting the candidature, but I think there is a lot of potential here and I hope if this fails that GW will come back in a few months.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd second that last sentence. There are a lot of strong rationales for not promoting this candidate, and believe that this is too soon. But if the candidate can prove that they've learnt from their mistakes over a period of a few months, they would in all probability pass the next RfA with ease. --WFC-- 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I should add that I do like the frank and thoughtful answers to the questions. I agree with WSC and Doc Quintana's reasons for not supporting the candidature, but I think there is a lot of potential here and I hope if this fails that GW will come back in a few months.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support on the basis of clear, thoughtful, and intelligent answers to the questions. For some candidates I'd want to see more varied edits, but GorillaWarfare already strikes me as someone who knows what it's about, and I'm happy with what I see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Pedro and question 9 as this user obviously will not go crazy with the tools. wiooiw (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Why do most of oppose rationales at RfA say things like "Not enough content edits." and "Too many automated edits.". In fact, some successful RfAs big part of the nom was the fact they wrote an anti-vandal bot. Most of being an sysop is to prevent vandalism, so why would they need major experience in content creation? Other RfAs have been denied on the fact that they had only content creation experience. RfA is supposed to see if the community trusts the candidate's judgement, not if they have enough trophies. Sorry for the rant, but good luck. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 00:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support (edit conflict) - seems competent, has clue. Not having voted in any RFAs is a plus in my book - it means you're less involved in the drama side of the project, and more involved in improving the encyclopaedia. I trust this user with the tools. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Research into GorillaWarfare's edit history indicates (s)he is a compotent editor and will be a plus to the project as an admin. --PinkBull 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Plenty of experience, unlikely to do anything rash, and puts forward a good and - importantly - honest argument. As I've been arguing on the Signpost, the benefit of the doubt needs to be given more around here. Esteffect (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I was going to go neutral and say rack up more edits, but that's not necessary. The contribution number is on the low side (8,386 if you add in the previous account but consider the automation) but the non automated edits are good, and I wouldn't underestimate the quality of vandal patrolling here. I didn't look at every edit, but I saw nothing that worried me looking through both accounts. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support I oppose almost all the time lately, and normally the CSD mistakes would keep me out of this column. However, the candidate seems to take constructive criticism on board unusually well, and the communication skills are top-notch. The Talk page correspondence with other editors is particularly encouraging. I believe this user will be a good administrator. Townlake (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - has a clue and gave good answers to all questions. Airplaneman ✈ 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Despite the mistakes, I trust you, and hope that should this fail, you'll be back here in 6 months. Courcelles 02:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support: Some valid concerns raised below. Take some time to deal with them. We need good admins and hope to see you in six months. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support I've seen your mistakes from the past, and seen how you improved over the months (and years). Even through you have less edits then some users think you should, and that most of them are automated, I still trust you. After all, the point of having Administrators is that they spend lots (if not the majority or all) of their time to control vandalism with their enhanced tools and help make sure the project runs smoothly. RFA standards for lots of users are way too high right now, and this has led to a reduced number of new admins which has now cut into the number of active admins. I probably have low standards than everyone else, but they are good enough that you can do the job. Techman224Talk 03:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Pedro. ResMar 03:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Techman224. I like you, and I thought your answers were spot on. I'm not at all bothered by the balance of your edits, and even though you've certainly made mistakes, you've shown a great willingness to learn from them. Here's hoping you get enough support to get you over the hump. AP1787 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - was on the fence until I saw the first three sentences of the candidate's answer to Q7: "Well I don't see why you shouldn't support those three [JD, TR, TTTSNB] either. I was not of the impression that there were a limited number of administrator positions (for lack of a better descriptor) available. I don't see why it would be possible or negative to have too many vandal fighter administrators." Great phrasing, in my opinion. A bit combative, but that can be chalked up to a slightly combative question. It shows the levelheadedness I like in admin candidates. Gorilla, if you ever need assistance, drop me a line. Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support level headed and sufficient experience. Polargeo (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Enough substance in vandal fighting to support IMO, also strongly agree with Pedro. SwarmTalk 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Good communicator, intelligent and considered answers to the questions, good contribution history and demonstrates a willingness to self improve. Satisfies my main RFA criterion. Begoontalk 07:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - per Pedro. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support A net benefit to the project here, very much appreciate the vandal fighting techniques, But article edits seem low, would be a good idea to beef this up in the future for experience. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - While she doesn't have that much content contribution under her belt, she certainly understands what it is all about [1] [2], and that's what matters to me. My criterion is met, answers are good, and mistakes are there to learn from them. refactored - candidate is female --Pgallert (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support- I see no real grounds for concern with this candidate. Reyk YO! 10:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Will be able to learn on the job. Pichpich (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Although your amount of mainspace edits is rather small in comparison to your total amount of edits, you have 2537 mainspace edits, and WP:Admin coaching says For most editors, around 1000 – 1500 mainspace edits (and a reasonable proportion of all edits) would be a typical minimum [for RfA]., so I guess you're fine. You also seems to have a good understanding of the policies and guidelines. —Waterfox (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - good knowledge of content creation, shown by candidate's two created articles; good answers to questions, especially Q7. Also, good knowledge of policy around here, such as demonstrated in Talk:Ocean_City,_Maryland#Ocean_City_Surf_Report and User talk:Pankajraj01#Your edits to Garhwali. I note a bit of misapplication of policy, such as WP:PROD; I also note that none of us is perfect. Frank | talk 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- SupportActive in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia, and accepts positive criticism to improve use of CSD tools. More article creation and contribution to articles would be good in an admin candidate, but seems worthy of the mop and bucket. Edison (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support Per answers to questions, I think you'd make a great "mop-wielder". To those who opposed on basis of lack of experience, if being on the project and active for almost three years is "inexperienced," then what does constitute enough experience to be an admin? 2 says you, says two 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support - looks trustworthy, not likely to abuse the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support - we need more janitors, not more paper pushers and architects Triona (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per answers to my CSD exercise (and not because of the flattery... honest!). I don't see that it is necessary to be a good editor to be a good administrator (heck... I've hardly ever written anything of substance, even before I got the mop!), but an understanding of the policies is definitely required. Has shown good understanding of policy and follow-up work. Stephen! Coming... 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- support - RFA sucks. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support I'm shocked that I am lending my support to such an inexperienced candidate. (Zounds! Only one edit to the Portal namespace? I have 14 times as many.) However, I have been known to be a bit of a nut, so I'll support anyway. AlexiusHoratius 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose – I am not liking the almost 70% automated edits, even if you do have 8,300 edits. Also this page reports that you have not voted in any RfA's or RfB's before, which is definitely an area an admin should have experience in. ••Pepper•• 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why should voting in RfX's be a prerequisite for adminship? That approach seems to me to promote a closed shop. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If I'm not mistaken, many editors like to see RfX activity for admins running for crat. While !voting in RfXs is no requirement for users running for admin, doing so is definitely a plus. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- How does the fact that they are automated diminish them? Automated tools make the same edits I could and would do manually. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a matter of sample size. You can do multiple automated edits in the time it would take to do one manual edit, so automated edits hold less weight. I think it's about a ratio of 10:1, but others may be able to tell you more on that. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're a way of making lots of edits quickly, boosting your edit count in preparation for an RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- By the number of edits that you currently do have, I am pretty sure that all those automated edits were not for the sake of building up a reasonable edit count, but, as Doc Quintana said, the automated edits generally take less time, therefore they hold less weight. In terms of RfA's, I find it a very strong plus the the candidate knows the RfA process inside and out, and it is a minus if the candidate hasn't even participated in one. ••Pepper•• 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- One, you seem to be misquoting Fastily, two, speaking of holding less weight, your argument looks like a symptom of severe editcountitis. SwarmTalk 06:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please.... just because someone bases an argument based on an analysis of various edit counts, doesn't mean they believe that editcount is the sum total a user's value to the project. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- If viewing automated edits as less valuable simply because they take less time isn't editcountitis, it's worse. When it comes to edit count, vandal fighters should be held to a higher standard, but the argument automated edits generally take less time, therefore they hold less weight is completely ridiculous. Vandal fighting edits are worth the same whether they're automated or not. There's no logic in those arguments. SwarmTalk 10:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- True, I misquoted, and have fixed that. I still do believe that a manual edit is more weighty than a automated edit. As an over-exaggerated, yet still possible example: a user makes 10-15 edits over a period of 1 hour that eventually leads a page to become a Good Article. A vandal fighter makes 10-15 edits in a few minutes, and often, especially when carelessly using the tools, a mistake or 2 will slip buy unnoticed. Which user would I support? Most definately the one with a GA, not the careless vandal fighter. I am not saying that GorillaWarfare is a careless vandal fighter, nor am I saying that I would support a user for the sole reason of having a GA. I have noted the supports, but I will stay opposing for now. ••Pepper•• 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- If viewing automated edits as less valuable simply because they take less time isn't editcountitis, it's worse. When it comes to edit count, vandal fighters should be held to a higher standard, but the argument automated edits generally take less time, therefore they hold less weight is completely ridiculous. Vandal fighting edits are worth the same whether they're automated or not. There's no logic in those arguments. SwarmTalk 10:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please.... just because someone bases an argument based on an analysis of various edit counts, doesn't mean they believe that editcount is the sum total a user's value to the project. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- One, you seem to be misquoting Fastily, two, speaking of holding less weight, your argument looks like a symptom of severe editcountitis. SwarmTalk 06:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- By the number of edits that you currently do have, I am pretty sure that all those automated edits were not for the sake of building up a reasonable edit count, but, as Doc Quintana said, the automated edits generally take less time, therefore they hold less weight. In terms of RfA's, I find it a very strong plus the the candidate knows the RfA process inside and out, and it is a minus if the candidate hasn't even participated in one. ••Pepper•• 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why should voting in RfX's be a prerequisite for adminship? That approach seems to me to promote a closed shop. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. When it comes to project space edits, you're a bit on the low side: only 76 edits to AIV, 4 to RFPP, none to UAA or ANI and only two edits to Wikipedia talk pages are way too few for a metapedian. Even though I think you're a net positive and I morally support you, I have to oppose, because I don't think you're experienced enough in admin-related areas to be handed the tools. Sorry. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not worried about the proportion of automated edits and I'm certainly not bothered about lack of RFA involvement as this is an RFA not an RFB. However I am concerned about some of your speedy deletion tags. I've restored one and moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Mii Party as an example - over hasty and not in my view "no context". As it says at Special:NewPages "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision". So I'm sorry, but I don't think you are ready yet - hope to be able to support in a few months, but please learn a little more restraint at newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right in that it was a quick tag, but it was also deleted per that tag, not denied. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Its one of the problems of speedy tagging when as in this case the editor whose article was tagged hasn't edited since, that's why the instructions ask people not to be as quick as you were with A1 or A3 tags. Do you still think that article was "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I agree with you that it was probably too quick of a tag. I just wanted to point out that it was not denied. And I do understand how that could be discouraging for a new editor -- I will be sure to keep that in mind with my future edits, regardless of whether or not I have admin tools. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 22:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- In all fairness, Iphoneorange (talk · contribs), the page's creator, is a rather sporadic editor. Nevertheless, I concur with WereSpielChequers in that it is discouraging. Nobody likes their work being thrown away, let alone within minutes of it being saved. Maybe WSC was alluding to WP:BITE in regards to the swiftness of your tagging. Airplaneman ✈ 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't denied, because it was deleted many hours later, as the original author hadn't made any changes by then. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I agree with you that it was probably too quick of a tag. I just wanted to point out that it was not denied. And I do understand how that could be discouraging for a new editor -- I will be sure to keep that in mind with my future edits, regardless of whether or not I have admin tools. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 22:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Its one of the problems of speedy tagging when as in this case the editor whose article was tagged hasn't edited since, that's why the instructions ask people not to be as quick as you were with A1 or A3 tags. Do you still think that article was "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right in that it was a quick tag, but it was also deleted per that tag, not denied. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I would like to see more content editing. The proportion of automated edits is not a problem for me (mine were 85%...), but I did have 5000+ "normal edits" which just about got me through, you have less than 2000 "normal edits". I would expect quite a few editors to oppose with less than 2000 edits. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose While a lot of automated edits are fine, they comprise almost all your edits which is not ok. Less than 50% of your edits are to article space, and your editing pattern is sporatic. I know we can't be on all the time, but you've been active less than half the months since account creation. I'm happy you've decided to take an interest in Wikipedia and please continue to work hard. However at this time, you do not meet my admin criteria. No prejudice against a second RfA maybe 6-12 months down the road. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- What about WP:NONEED? Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with your use of NONEED. While in the ideal circumstances someone trustworthy holding the tools at any level of activity is a net benefit. I don't trust her because I don't think she has enough experience. The sporadic editing was just one of several reasons given to support that proposition. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- What about WP:NONEED? Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the limited content creation, the low number of projectspace edits, and the focus on automated edits gives me the opinion that you have limited experience throughout the project. This puts your Huggle count at about 2400, and your Twinkle count at 1700. That's not what I would consider a lot, if you plan to focus on that (I have 2900 Huggle edits and I haven't even touched it in months). I'd recommend waiting about four months, and during that time, you should write a few articles, maybe get one to GA/FA level, and explore more areas of the project, including RfA, AfD, etc. —fetch·comms 02:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Little to no involvement in template, category, file, and portal namespaces shows a lack of versatility, although these are more obscure areas of the project, it is likely you will come across something here. Also, I tend to expect over 5,000 non-automated edits for admins; you have 1932. As Fetchcomms points out, that number is very little, as someone told me that Hugglers get up to 2,000 edits in a weekend. A lack of content editing (3 articles; two stubs and a dab) and no "recognized" content. Write some stuff, or improve something and try again in about a year. ℳono 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time. This edit gave me a bad case of Facepalm. The editor was explaining their extensive experience with the subject, and you dinged them for not mentioning that they had edited the article as well. Practice a bit more, and maybe in 6 months to a year, I'll be able to support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's not a valid thing to say. An interest in the subject does not necessarily mean an editor has a vested interest with the article... — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 03:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with GorillaWarfare, he did edit the article numerous times and didn't mention it. Also with his strong keep, it did seem he had a interest in the article, he was only reminding them of the policy and it isn't a personal attack. Plus even if it was wrong, I wouldn't just slam the door of them for six months just for this one mistake, all people do make mistakes from time to time, admins are not perfect and have never been. Techman224Talk 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's not a valid thing to say. An interest in the subject does not necessarily mean an editor has a vested interest with the article... — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 03:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per SarekOfVulcan, large automated edits proportion, and lack of content building. If you don't see anything wrong with the AFD comment, now is clearly not the time to give you access to the tools. Even without that, I would not support at this time. Vodello (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I have to oppose at this time. Looking at your recent history I see several things that concern me over your knowledge of policy. The speedy tagging identified by WereSpielChequers above and at Serwan Baban concern me over you knowledge of the speedy criteria, which is an area you say you want to work in. The Route M4 (Manhattan) article where you restored the prod tag to the article twice after it was removed, was only a couple of weeks ago and how this was wrong had to be pointed out to you on your talk page. The AFD comment brought up by SarekOfVulcan is also concerning. Given that speedy deletion and AFD closing are areas where you want to work in as an admin these recent examples, combined with not having much content experience, lead me to have to oppose at this time. I see evidence you are learning from you mistakes however and hope (if this fails) I can support you in the future where you have more experience showing knowledge of policy in the areas you want to work in. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have moved Route M4 (Manhattan) to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Route M4 (Manhattan) so non-admins can see what happened as two editors below have raised it as an issue as well. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The overall experience is insufficient at this time. Vandal fighting is certainly appreciated, but for an admin candidate I would generally want to see greater evidence, at least in terms of absolute numbers if not the percentage, of involvement in other areas of the project. In particular, a bit more content work would certainly be a plus - right now your top edited article has only 10 edits by you. Looking at the projectspace contrib record, only 268 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk namespaces. A few recent problems with CSD tagging; you mention that you plan to do AfD closings, but from looking at your contrib record since the start of this year, I see little AfD participation before July. One needs a bit longer than a month of active AfD work to really get the hang of things there. The diff provided by Sarek is also somewhat worrying - bringing up a "vested interest" argument in an AfD usually requires more substantial evidence than what was available here. Overall the candidates strikes me as someone who is certainly on the right track but is not quite ready for adminship yet. Nsk92 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Little experience of building the encyclopedia, and I was very unimpressed with the AfD brought up by SarekofVulcan (vested interest in an area of academic study?), by the overhasty speedy tagging, and by the misunderstanding of the proposed deletion process. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I find the attitude displayed by this recent edit to be distasteful and indicative of a patronisingly bossy mentality that too many administrators already share. I find it doubly distasteful to see it displayed in a schoolchild. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Content is a consideration, but your deletion record is the big issue. Following on from where Malleus left off, if an admin is doing his or her job properly, vested interests are irrelevant at AfD (unless it is a breach of WP:COI). All that matters is qualitative discussion based on policy or guidelines. That fact that you see a vested interest as an issue suggests to me that you would close AfDs democratically, which is entirely wrong. As a non-admin, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin or crat could verify DaveWild's claim that a PROD was incorrectly re-added twice on Route M4 (Manhattan). I'm in no doubt that it's true, but it would be helpful to get confirmation from an uninvolved party. --WFC-- 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose I count as involved, but I believe that is accurate. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Route M4 (Manhattan) so non-admins can see the history. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose I count as involved, but I believe that is accurate. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose A Wikipedian since July, 2007, but really only highly active since the beginning of the year. Low number of edits to article space. On the flip side, the candidate has developed significant vandal-fighting cred's. One day this candidate will be a fine administrator; however, I don't believe now is the time.--Hokeman (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – Although you say you would like to work in vandalism revertion, I would also like to see more content building. Also, I'm not trying to be picky on edits, but for a user who specializes in anti-vandalism, I would like to see more edits than you have. In addition, I am concerned about your CSD taggings. A7 is not about notability, but importance; if an article has any credible assertion of importance, it cannot be deleted under A7. This is frequently misunderstood by new page patrollers. If DaveWild was correct that Route M4 (Manhattan) was double-prodded, then I have some concerns about that as well. I would like to see more edits spread out in different parts of the project besides vandalism revertion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Route M4 (Manhattan) so non-admins can see the history. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - On the question of creations, I think it's reasonable to expect an RfA candidate's own creations, however few they are, to demonstrate that the candidate has a fairly sound knowledge of content policy. GorillaWarfare's contributions do not. My opinion here is that a little more experience and an increased sense of judgement are needed - things that will come with a few more months of more experience. One way to get the CSD issues right is not to tag if in doubt, but to watch the page and see what the more experienced patrollers do to it, and if you visit a lot of AfD debates, don't feel compelled to leave a comment each time, but come back and see how it was wound up..--Kudpung (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings as they were created by GorillaWarfare, can you explain how they are lacking in "sound knowledge of content policy"? Frank | talk 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Frank, Can you give us a good reason how they demonstrate that knowledgee? And your reasons for supporting this RfA?--Kudpung (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a discussion, and you're avoiding answering my question. I'll answer yours, however. Both articles are well-written in encylopedic tone and content. They both have multiple sources independent of the subject. (Admittedly, Levings is a bit thin, but the refs are there.) They are properly formatted in Wikipedia-standard style and the references appeared in the first drafts of both articles. They have appropriate internal wiki-links and sections you'd expect to find in an article. They both assert and demonstrate the notability of their subjects. All of these comments apply to the very first saved version of the two articles. In addition, the initial draft of Riddell is a more mature article than the initial draft of Levings, which indicates a greater knowledge of the article-building process developed in the intervening period (1 week). Now, can you give us a good reason how they do not demonstrate the "fairly sound knowledge of content policy" you listed in your oppose? Frank | talk 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Frank, Can you give us a good reason how they demonstrate that knowledgee? And your reasons for supporting this RfA?--Kudpung (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings as they were created by GorillaWarfare, can you explain how they are lacking in "sound knowledge of content policy"? Frank | talk 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral - Neutral for now until further arguments by others. I see positive contributions and I recognise your name. However, you've not got a huge amount of edits in Wikipedia space and you've only been properly active on this account for 8 months. That last part isn't an opposing factor, it's just a minor concern, so for now...neutral. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral I think you're on the way there. Keep up the good work, and try again in a few months. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular reason though? At least I've explained... Paralympiakos (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- A bunch of them, but you're right, I should explain a bit more. Ultimately, Gorilla's only been around actively since January (he only had about 800 of his 8,000 before then), the automated edits inflate his experience, and 8,000 manual edits is probably only on the cusp of what's neccessary to pass an rfa these days it seems (for me, I think 5,000 edits and one year is fine if they understand policy, but I also think that number can vary depending on the candidate, if they're around for 10 years and get a million edits but are a trouble maker, they shouldn't have the mop). However, like you, I have seen Gorilla around and I think she's on the right path, so I wanted to give a goodwill opinion here in the hopes she'll try again later. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- While this doesn't change my oppose vote. I found that this user under her former name User:Theunicyclegirl had about 2000 additional manual edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's true, but I think the name change also degrades the value of those edits somewhat as well. It's an inexact science to be certain. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- While this doesn't change my oppose vote. I found that this user under her former name User:Theunicyclegirl had about 2000 additional manual edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- A bunch of them, but you're right, I should explain a bit more. Ultimately, Gorilla's only been around actively since January (he only had about 800 of his 8,000 before then), the automated edits inflate his experience, and 8,000 manual edits is probably only on the cusp of what's neccessary to pass an rfa these days it seems (for me, I think 5,000 edits and one year is fine if they understand policy, but I also think that number can vary depending on the candidate, if they're around for 10 years and get a million edits but are a trouble maker, they shouldn't have the mop). However, like you, I have seen Gorilla around and I think she's on the right path, so I wanted to give a goodwill opinion here in the hopes she'll try again later. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular reason though? At least I've explained... Paralympiakos (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)