Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wtmitchell
Editing stats for Wtmitchell at 07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC): Username: Wtmitchell User groups: rollbacker First edit: Nov 17, 2004 08:03:43 Unique articles edited: 10,402 Average edits per page: 2.05 Total edits (including deleted): 21,333 Deleted edits: 89 Live edits: 21,244 Namespace totals Article 12863 60.55% Talk 1410 6.64% User 668 3.14% User talk 4806 22.62% Wikipedia 649 3.05% Wikipedia talk 464 2.18% File 2 0.01% File talk 3 0.01% MediaWiki talk 1 0.00% Template 237 1.12% Template talk 138 0.65% Category 1 0.00% Portal 2 0.01% Month counts 2004/11 3 2004/12 0 2005/01 0 2005/02 0 2005/03 3 2005/04 0 2005/05 1 2005/06 0 2005/07 0 2005/08 2 2005/09 1 2005/10 0 2005/11 0 2005/12 0 2006/01 0 2006/02 0 2006/03 0 2006/04 0 2006/05 0 2006/06 16 2006/07 33 2006/08 64 2006/09 217 2006/10 126 2006/11 192 2006/12 149 2007/01 125 2007/02 127 2007/03 195 2007/04 228 2007/05 443 2007/06 674 2007/07 345 2007/08 259 2007/09 392 2007/10 465 2007/11 183 2007/12 490 2008/01 484 2008/02 340 2008/03 365 2008/04 410 2008/05 579 2008/06 177 2008/07 176 2008/08 451 2008/09 510 2008/10 313 2008/11 230 2008/12 321 2009/01 457 2009/02 429 2009/03 2382 2009/04 3270 2009/05 4327 2009/06 1290 Logs Pages moved: 51 Pages patrolled: 15 Files uploaded: 6 Top edited articles Article •155 - Conscription •125 - Philippine–American_War •125 - Boracay •108 - History_of_the_Philippines_(1898–1946) •93 - Subic_rape_case •93 - Filipino_people •91 - Philippines •88 - Separation_of_church_and_state •82 - History_of_the_Philippines •77 - Dog_meat Talk •34 - United_States •32 - Spanish_language_in_the_Philippines •31 - Puerto_Rico •29 - Filipino_people •26 - Dog/Archive_4 •26 - Philippines •25 - List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_tota... •23 - Boracay •22 - List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population •21 - Dog_meat User •353 - Wtmitchell/Draft1 •65 - Wtmitchell/Sandbox •55 - Wtmitchell •42 - Wtmitchell/Work1 •41 - Wtmitchell/Draft2 •36 - Wtmitchell/monobook.css •22 - Wtmitchell/monobook.js •13 - Wtmitchell/Draft3 •7 - Netscott/Spanish_ethnicity •6 - Wtmitchell/Work2 User talk •171 - Wtmitchell •6 - RossPatterson •6 - SallyScot •5 - Christopher_Sundita •5 - Wtmitchell/Archive_3_(2009) •5 - Sky_Harbor •5 - Angelo_De_La_Paz •5 - Evertype •5 - 70.181.237.3 •4 - Ssdeleter Wikipedia •132 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism •90 - Huggle/Whitelist •51 - Village_pump_(technical) •41 - Village_pump_(proposals) •28 - Citing_sources •25 - Sandbox/Archive •20 - Intensive_Care_Unit •18 - Sandbox •14 - Footnotes •9 - Reliable_sources Wikipedia talk •153 - Citing_sources •51 - Footnotes •47 - Verifiability •40 - Tambayan_Philippines •30 - Reliable_sources •21 - Layout •14 - Intensive_Care_Unit •10 - Naming_conventions •9 - Twinkle •8 - Citation_templates File •1 - Katagalugan_Republic_Flag.gif •1 - K-219_map.PNG File talk •2 - Sakay.jpg •1 - Ph_physical_map.png MediaWiki talk •1 - Spam-blacklist Template •56 - X8 •43 - X9 •26 - Template_sandbox •26 - X1 •16 - X5 •15 - X2 •7 - X7 •5 - Wikitravel •4 - X6 •3 - Strong Template talk •53 - Citation •25 - Ref •13 - Cite_web •10 - Infobox_Country •8 - Wikitravel •4 - Shortcut •4 - Policy_shortcut •3 - Notice •3 - Span •2 - Ref_label Category •1 - Festivals_in_France Portal •1 - War/Featured_picture/5 •1 - Current_events/2008_October_6
Moved "gotta have one oppose" discussion
[edit]The following discussion thread has nothing to do with the candidate, so I've removed it (had it been one or two lines, I may have left it, but this is a ridiculous amount of text for what amounts to a joke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quite unnecessary really but whatever blows your skirt up... - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The same could be said about the entire thread itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, EVula. Nothing but a totally unnecessary distraction for the amusement of the original jokester. Tan | 39 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh noz! The cabal hath spoken! *rolls eyes* - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, EVula. Nothing but a totally unnecessary distraction for the amusement of the original jokester. Tan | 39 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- The same could be said about the entire thread itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose 'Cause you gotta have at least 1. ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- May I indent this vote? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not if it makes Oppose = 0. Otherwise, sure. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- This joke oppose creates a misleading tally, which is extremely unfair to the candidate. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Julian completely. Put yourself in the neutral column if you want to jokingly object to the candidate. Otherwise, I'm going to remove this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- How is this less of a valid reason than "why not"? It's not misleading, it's an oppose vote. If you want to discuss it with the editor, you're welcome to do so here or (as I would suggest) on their talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not valid simply because the editor in question isn't being serious. It's not like we're talking about mystifying stuff here. All supports, even moral ones serve a purpose and have a meaning. This one does not. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those who monitor these elections know to ignore votes such as this, and a "1" in the oppose column is actually a very good message to the candidate. It says, there's no good reason to oppose you, as evidenced by the silly vote. The best reply to such as vote it simply, "Thank you for your vote". -GTBacchus(talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not valid simply because the editor in question isn't being serious. It's not like we're talking about mystifying stuff here. All supports, even moral ones serve a purpose and have a meaning. This one does not. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wisdom, I have found your name to be appropriate, but in this particular case I'm uncomfortable with your acting as judge and jury on which votes have "meaning". I understand your concern, and I am sympathetic to the case made for objective standards, as in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for an objective standard of "beauty", but I think we have to let some things go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- How is this less of a valid reason than "why not"? It's not misleading, it's an oppose vote. If you want to discuss it with the editor, you're welcome to do so here or (as I would suggest) on their talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Julian completely. Put yourself in the neutral column if you want to jokingly object to the candidate. Otherwise, I'm going to remove this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- This joke oppose creates a misleading tally, which is extremely unfair to the candidate. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not if it makes Oppose = 0. Otherwise, sure. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I lol'd. It's just harmless humor, you guys. Worse things have happened to better people. It's a little dickish to do if the guy's got a clean oppose section, but it's not worth a drama-fest.--Koji† 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had a single oppose vote, and it was ridiculous. I didn't find it dickish at all, in that I'm proud of it. A single ridiculous oppose vote is a better indication of my fitness than any 30 support votes. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let the record reflect that GTBacchus has a master's in new math. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had a single oppose vote, and it was ridiculous. I didn't find it dickish at all, in that I'm proud of it. A single ridiculous oppose vote is a better indication of my fitness than any 30 support votes. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- May I indent this vote? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, didn't realize it was that big of a deal. Just to note, no one is 100% perfect so even in that thought, 1 oppose is certainly warranted. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll state such next to the oppose !vote. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in ur rfa's, fixing ur tallies. Syn 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Zactly. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in ur rfa's, fixing ur tallies. Syn 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let the closing bureaucrat determine the validity of this !vote. This drama is unnecessary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Allstarecho stated we may indent this opposition as long as it does not make the opposes = 0; since there is now an opposition by Keepscases, I am indenting Allstarecho's opposition. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- So unnecessary... but if it makes you happy. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is why I indented it in the first place, though Allstarecho reverted it.[1] I'm honestly considering just archiving the whole damn thread, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Allstarecho stated we may indent this opposition as long as it does not make the opposes = 0; since there is now an opposition by Keepscases, I am indenting Allstarecho's opposition. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Typo in my neutral
[edit]Was just looking over the archived RFA and I noticed a typo in my Neutral vote. When I said I didn't like the answer to Question 13, I actually meant to say 12 (the one about rights). Just wanted to make it clear, but I don't want to edit the archived discussion. Congrats on passing, Wtmitchell Firestorm Talk 22:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)