May I nominate you for adminship? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
.gif){kind=small}
And you've been nominated. :) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry that didn't work out. :( —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 08:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- It worked out better than I thought it might. I'm glad to know I have strong support. --[[User:Eequor|η
υωρ]] 18:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the things people disagree with you on are valid concerns for you to have, and you should keep on expressing them. However, I think your judgement has been poor in the manner in which you've raised those points. The fact that it has caused a large number of people to vote against you is evidence that you have not always chosen wise ways to make your viewpoints known. I'm almost tempted to remove my oppose vote, because I don't feel the current 3/11 vote is a fair reflection on you as a user (especially in light of the fact far worse users have gotten far more support in the past). Although I think you need to be a little bit more careful in how you express yourself, your contributions are generally good, and it is important to have dissenting voices.
However, for dissent to be effective you have to make sure you express yourself in a way such that people listen to you rather than blow you off. That doesn't seem to be happening at the moment, I'm afraid. I think that's a shame, and I hope things change in the future, but the reality is you're probably going to have to make that happen. I hope in a few months that you're up for adminship again and I can vote for you, because like I said, I think dissenting voices are important.
Take care, and don't let things get you down. Shane King 06:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. What confuses me is that there is a certain group of users who appear to have always disliked me, despite having had no contact with me. This has, of course, led me to be more defensive than I otherwise might, and lost them any respect I might have had. I generally try to be nice to everyone, so I'm justifiably upset by those who speak first with rudeness. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 07:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I see a lot of people get stuck in a viscous circle here: while people are willing to assume the best about people initially, if you make a couple of mistakes you very quickly get pigeonholed as someone people assume the worst about. I'm sorry if my initial comments of Rfa came off as being that of someone who dislikes you. I was just concerned about the attitudes you'd stirred up in other people, which in retrospect is probably unfair. I've changed my vote to neutral, I hope you'll accept my apologies for being overly hasty in my opposition. Shane King 07:40, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I can confirm that this "viscious circle" certainly happens, and my RFA attempt certainly shows that. I can't speak for anyone else's votes on your RFA, but my vote isn't a result of any personal dislike, nor a result of "voting with the crowd". Mine reflects a genuine concern (edit summaries) which I don't think has been addressed, and I hope you work on it. -- Netoholic @ 15:42, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
- I see. That's relieving to know. I'll admit that I tend to use fairly minimal edit summaries, but I feel that the summaries are useful only in explaining the motivations for particular edits, not in describing exactly what was done. The best description of an edit is the history. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 22:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I see. That's relieving to know. I'll admit that I tend to use fairly minimal edit summaries, but I feel that the summaries are useful only in explaining the motivations for particular edits, not in describing exactly what was done. The best description of an edit is the history. --[[User:Eequor|η
I don't know you very well, but you've made a generally positive impression on me. The only negative thing I know about you is that you put God on cleanup, and put some unusually feminist additions on it, but the page had a flurry of edits after that, and maybe it was all for the best after all. Sam [Spade] 18:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I hope so. The article seems to have improved muchly since then. In particular, the table of contents looks reasonable now. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see that you are an inclusionist, and apparently you are the one who put me on the "Honorary members" listing for M:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Both good points in your favor, along w pretty much everything else I have seen of your work here. Your religion confuses me, but thats certainly no grounds to oppose your nomination ;)
Your RfA is clearly controvercial, and you arn't at all likely to win, but I feel the reasoning being used against you is unfair. You made some hearty complaints regarding lack of interest in the meta page generally, and bug fixes specifically. I think your complaints were somewhat warranted, altho you must understand the folks who fix bug's are volunteers too, and if they don't want to do anything... what can we do to motivate them?
All of that said, I suppose I will give you my vote, if for no other reason than you are generally likeable, and had the good sense to mention it on my talk page :) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well.. I read over the RfA, and I'm sorry to say there is too much muck being tossed about for me to be able to support at this time. I ment to, even started writing out my support vote, but the criticism I saw a couple days ago about the bug reports pales in comparison to some of the others. For example, did you actually put all of rambots edits on VfD? That doesn't strike me as very inclusionist, if you did. Since all the negatory stuff is hearsay, I won't vote neutral or oppose, but I can't support at this time either. I'll look into you a bit more, and see if I can support (or perhaps even nominate :) you next time. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Geogre's claim is a misrepresentation. I had actually asked for the deletion of articles about towns having fewer than about 1,000 inhabitants which had been produced solely by Rambot. Of course I was not seriously expecting them to be deleted; I was trying to draw attention to the inferior quality of articles produced by Rambot, and to encourage discussion about whether Rambot should be used at all.
Hi! I have no idea who you are or what you stand for, but I'm appalled by the way you're being treated on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I'm sorry. VeryVerily 10:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry the adminship didn't happen, Eequor. You are a very talented editor, very knowledgeable with great insights. Please don't let this get you down. I'll see you around the reference desk :) func(talk) 14:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Eequor/Archives/Adminship I" page.
