First we need to know what your user name is. Next we need somebody to quickly verify that you pretty much know how the place works and most importantly are not the type of person that would abuse admin powers (that is, you are not a vandal or troll). This describes nearly all old timers and most users that have been editing more or less daily for a month or so. I would bet it also describes you but we do need to know what username you edit under.
My username is anonymous56789. Even though I've only used this account for a few weeks, I've been using wikipedia for months. I definitely wouldn't abuse admil powers. I edit wikipedia every day and make a new entry on average about 2 a day. I always check my sources. Before letting me be an admin, I think you should know that I am 13 years old, and if you think my information would be inaccurate, then don't make me an admin.
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
At 02:54 PM 3/6/03 -0500, Daniel wrote:
First we need to know what your user name is. Next we need somebody to quickly verify that you pretty much know how the place works and most importantly are not the type of person that would abuse admin powers (that is, you are not a vandal or troll). This describes nearly all old timers and most users that have been editing more or less daily for a month or so. I would bet it also describes you but we do need to know what username you edit under.
My username is anonymous56789. Even though I've only used this account for a few weeks, I've been using wikipedia for months. I definitely wouldn't abuse admil powers. I edit wikipedia every day and make a new entry on average about 2 a day. I always check my sources. Before letting me be an admin, I think you should know that I am 13 years old, and if you think my information would be inaccurate, then don't make me an admin.
Sounds good to me--as anonymous56789 he's been a good, steady contributor, and I don't think age is relevant: the project and the work we do on it are what matter.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
Sounds good to me--as anonymous56789 he's been a good, steady contributor, and I don't think age is relevant: the project and the work we do on it are what matter.
I agree. I join Ed Poor, though, in _recommending_ that a more confidence-inspiring username would be a good idea. It need not be a real name, of course, but 'anonymous56789' might tend to confuse people, as it sounds like a username of a passerby testing the system, rather than a trusted and valued member of the community.
--Jimbo
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
First we need to know what your user name is. Next we need somebody to quickly verify that you pretty much know how the place works and most importantly are not the type of person that would abuse admin powers (that is, you are not a vandal or troll). This describes nearly all old timers and most users that have been editing more or less daily for a month or so. I would bet it also describes you but we do need to know what username you edit under.
My username is anonymous56789. Even though I've only used this account for a few weeks, I've been using wikipedia for months. I definitely wouldn't abuse admil powers. I edit wikipedia every day and make a new entry on average about 2 a day. I always check my sources. Before letting me be an admin, I think you should know that I am 13 years old, and if you think my information would be inaccurate, then don't make me an admin.
This is great. I'd like to be able to convince my 13 year old son to participate, but any such suggestion only gets strange looks from him. :-)
Eclecticology
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 06 March 2003 14:54, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
First we need to know what your user name is. Next we need somebody to quickly verify that you pretty much know how the place works and most importantly are not the type of person that would abuse admin powers (that is, you are not a vandal or troll). This describes nearly all old timers and most users that have been editing more or less daily for a month or so. I would bet it also describes you but we do need to know what username you edit under.
My username is anonymous56789. Even though I've only used this account for a few weeks, I've been using wikipedia for months. I definitely wouldn't abuse admil powers. I edit wikipedia every day and make a new entry on average about 2 a day. I always check my sources. Before letting me be an admin, I think you should know that I am 13 years old, and if you think my information would be inaccurate, then don't make me an admin.
I don't want to be antagonistic, but as it stands I can't endorse someone for sysop powers who is both this new to wikipedia and who does not answer questions on their user talk page or on talk pages on articles they started .
Sascha Noyes - -- Please encrypt all correspondence. PGP key available from: http://individual.utoronto.ca/noyes/snoyes.asc - --
On Thursday 06 March 2003 14:54, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
First we need to know what your user name is. Next we need somebody to quickly verify that you pretty much know how the place works and most
importantly
are not the type of person that would abuse admin powers (that is, you are
not
a vandal or troll). This describes nearly all old timers and most users
that
have been editing more or less daily for a month or so. I would bet it also describes you but we do need to know what username you edit
under.
My username is anonymous56789. Even though I've only used this account
for
a few weeks, I've been using wikipedia for months. I definitely
wouldn't
abuse admil powers. I edit wikipedia every day and make a new entry on average about 2 a day. I always check my sources. Before letting me be
an
admin, I think you should know that I am 13 years old, and if you think
my
information would be inaccurate, then don't make me an admin.
I don't want to be antagonistic, but as it stands I can't endorse someone
for
sysop powers who is both this new to wikipedia and who does not answer questions on their user talk page or on talk pages on articles they
started .
Sascha Noyes
I tend to agree with Sacha - There are bound to be people wanting Sysop rights right away... Ive been around for a few months now. ( I think) And I dont want to ask for them, because they would require I tenor my language somewhat beyond what I do already under threats of censure.... Too soon, not being necessarily an issue of age, but of loyalty to the WP, and a firm and demonstrated understanding of its politics... politics is an immature and crafty business... I would suggest the minimum be around 6 months of solid work and demonstrated issues resolution before sysopdom... -Steven
Stevertigo wrote:
And I dont want to ask for them, because they would require I tenor my language somewhat beyond what I do already under threats of censure....
Heh, perhaps I should make you a sysop against your will, then. ;-)
Seriously, I would invite everyone to "tenor the language somewhat" whenever you have an opportunity to do so.
JW Wrote: Heh, perhaps I should make you a sysop against your will, then. ;-) Seriously, I would invite everyone to "tenor the language somewhat" whenever you have an opportunity to do so.
Thanks, Ill consider it.... but I'll ask.... when I want to stop scrappin with the gloves off. I have to many 'psychotic (Carlin expletive cut) hatreds' to have any one-ups on anyone I'm... training. ;) -Steven
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
And I dont want to ask for them, because they would require I tenor my language somewhat beyond what I do already under threats of censure....
Heh, perhaps I should make you a sysop against your will, then. ;-)
Hmmm. Like when during the French regime in Quebec. When they needed to hire an executioner, they offered the post to a condemned man as an opportunity to save his own life
Seriously, I would invite everyone to "tenor the language somewhat" whenever you have an opportunity to do so.
In those circumstances we already have too many sopranos with bass habits. :-)
Ec.