Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] BrownHairedGirl

Final (69/17/9) ended 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia for several months, and in that time I have performed over 7900 edits, and participated in a few dozen RfD and CfD discussions. I have not been involved in any major disputes: the few times that I seemed to get into trouble were early on, when I made mistakes which appeared on first appearance to be vandalism, although the warning tags were all withdrawn after discussion. I believe that I have enough experience of wikipedia to be able to make a useful admin, and would particularly welcome the ability to access the tools which would allow me to help combat vandalism. I am aware that some people dislike self-nominations for adminship (for reasons which i respect), and I will quite understand if this counts against me. BrownHairedGirl 19:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Not sure if I need to accept a self-nomination, but just in case, I do accept. --BrownHairedGirl 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support on WHEELS!!! Looks good to me! --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support I find nothing wrong in self-nominating. I am concerned, though, about your lack of edits on talk and user talkpages, plus comparatively lack of edits to projectspace. Nevertheless, I'm happy to support a positive and experienced editor. Rama's Arrow 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Looks good to me also. --Tone 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I am a person who's not too keen on self-noms, but BHG looks good to me. -lethe talk + 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Looks alright. No sign that they would abuse admin tools. Nephron  T|C 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Experienced. RadioKirk talk to me 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Great user and I'm sure that she will use the mop correctly. DarthVader 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Great, hard-working user, should be a good admin too abakharev 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, unlikely to abuse tools. Kimchi.sg 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Conditional support: Has only been there since the start of the year, but it looks like she's ready. --Slgrandson 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. The candidate's commitment to the project is clear. Although I can see the force of the objections made by JoshZ and others, I'm willing to make a leap of faith here. Bucketsofg✐ 00:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Dedicated member of the project. Looks like good admin material. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. While it's true that candidate doesn't have a lot of project space contribs, remember that we are writing an encyclopedia first here. She seems to have a clear grasp of policy, as evidenced in handling speedy deletions she doesn't agree with tactfully and properly, etc. She seems extremely polite in talking to other editors, even when correcting them. Her new articles are great and seem to comply with every policy imaginable, which shows that even if she doesn't post to the project space heavilly, she's certainly read a lot of it. So I'll go out on a limb here too and support. --W.marsh 01:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support. I'll make a leap of faith here due to your OUTSTANDING article contributions. But if this RFA fails, I highly suggest you join us at AfD and do a little Newpage/Recent Changes patrol. AfD is relatively easy to do and gets you a high profile with the community and direct experience with WP policy. I'd be very happy to nominate you myself in a few months then. Grandmasterka 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Has also demonstrated a lot of familiarity with WP policy recently. Grandmasterka 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, she will be fine but I still like to see more project space edits. --Terence Ong 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, I'll echo W.marsh here. Lectonar 13:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support It is time to give this user the mop. An experienced editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. She should have a good chance to use tools well.--Jusjih 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Need more admins. Haukur 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support with enthusiasm, have seen this user's name crop up repeatedly on my watchlist lately and it's all good. Also, a lot of her work is the sort of very useful but unexciting (to me, anyway) stuff which suggests she would be likely to make a dedicated admin in the areas she proposes. Palmiro | Talk 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support I like her attitude, she might not be a super-sysop straight-out-of-the-box, I have no doubt she will be soon, with some admin-experience. --Eivindt@c 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. No Big Deal Support. We need more admins, and really, I do trust BHG. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support BrownHairedGirl has been working in a professional manner, and has all the qualifications required by an efficient Administrator. Good luck ! TammamS 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Very Strong Support BHG has an excellent track record. I strongly support nomination for Administratorship. Best, Fares S 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. I'll take on good faith that she'll read up on relevant policies she might have missed. Low Wikispace edits don't concern me too much. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 01:24 UTC
  28. Support. I like what I've seen. After reading both sides of this discussion and her User page, I'm satisfied. Fluit 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support - competent and extremely active user. Should be an effective administrator. Warofdreams talk 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I think she will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 talk 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support as likely to use admin tools constructively and unlikely to abuse admin tools and inasmuch as Adminship is no big deal. Joe 05:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support there's no reason not too --Robdurbar 10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - Answers to questions, excellent contributions and other reasons already stated above make me trust her for adminisphip despite not having a massive number of project edits. Afonso Silva 10:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. I had considered nominating her myself. It looks like this might not make it, but judging from the opposes it will a month from now. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support.  Grue  17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support This member is now ready to become an admin. Good luck to you! Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support I'm not going to hold early mistakes (or the fact that "assisting" is spelled wrong in the first answer to the questions below) against her. Great user, ready for adminship. Steveo2 19:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support These oppose votes are such b******* KI 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    Be civil in your zeal. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 00:31 UTC
  40. Support - Ultra active user Canderous 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
  41. Support Active in AfD, takes note of issues when they arise even if they are outside of her area of focus --Lakhim 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support but lets see more edits in the project space! Good Luck! OSU80 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support PageantUpdater 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Sarge Baldy 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Seems like a very worthy candidate. Brisvegas 09:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support convinced me. Also very active in wikipedia discussions such as Afd, Cfd and so on. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support I came to your user page to give you a Barnstar (which I have; it's well deserved) and saw the RfA. I like what I've seen of your contributions, and am not convinced by the oppose votes. Colonel Tom 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support A levelheaded editor asking for tools to help improve this project is fine with me. --hydnjo talk 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Seems to be a sensible lady. Should be ready enough. -MrFizyx 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Initially I was going to oppose for the good reasons stated below, but I think this editor 1)can be trusted 2) will learn sensibly on the job. Tyrenius 02:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support - like Tyrenius, I was tempted to oppose, but I've satisfied myself that Wikipedia will be better off with her as an admin. —Whouk (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. --Bhadani 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. User seems immensely qualified. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. She wants the tools. So why not give them to her? She is a good person. Brian G. Crawford 07:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support --blue520 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Good, positive, track record. Kukini 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support - she has done immense work on Irish WP articles - Ali-oops✍ 11:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Joe I 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. It would have been nice to have seen more involvement outside the main article namespace – perhaps that's something that will come with admin responsibilities – but I don't think that that's enough to rule out adminship. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Been agonising about this one... I think a bit more non mainspace experience would be good but I'm giving the doubt.. she can learn as she goes. Good article editorship, shows skill, like her style where I've seen it, I think on balance this will work out. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Mel Etitis said exactly what I was going to say. AnnH ♫ 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. Seems like a sensible user who is unlikely to misuse tools. RicDod 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The following contributions were added after the deadline.
  64. Support. ForestH2
  65. Support. Good character, good intentions.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support Has a load of experience. Only weakness is the talk and project edits, but what makes up for that is the HUGE amount of article edits. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  67. Weak support Still needs more experience w/ things like RCPatrol, AfD. I sensed a reluctance to confront, but she did respond well to the template sorting criticism. :) Dlohcierekim 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support Wikipedia needs more good admins Myciconia 08:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Didn't know her at all until the RfA. I kept my eye on her contributions since it started, and I'm convinced that she'll make good decisions. -- Samir धर्म 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose with a heavy heart. I don't think the that the user has the necessary experience yet beyond article space nor am I convinced that she needs the tools. She states that "The two tasks which I have in mind are reverting vandalism, and asisting in the AfD/RfD/CFD process" but I see almost no vandalism reversions or warnings to users and I see zero edits to WP:AIV. Furthermore, although there are a fair number of edits to CfD, there are almost no edits to AfD and RfD. JoshuaZ 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    I take your point, and maybe you are right, but I did try vandalism patrolling a few months ago (e.g. on [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060313232355&limit=250&target=BrownHairedGirl 13th March, when I did three) by following the recent changes list and tracking pages which seemed suceptiable to vandalism (such as British National Party. However, I found that without the tools, the process was tooit was too cumbersome, so I didn't continue and removed those pages from my watchlist. Is this perhaps a chicken-and-egg situation? --BrownHairedGirl 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Most Reluctant Oppose Ever - I'm so sorry, but I have to oppose per JoshuaZ. "Average edits per day (current): 185.87" over the last 2000 edits was unbeleive, but outweighing that was that only 0.75% of those were to the Wikipedia space and there was almost no talk or user talk edits. I'm really sorry, just come back in a little while (at your edit rate in a couple of weeks) with some more Wikipedia space edits to learn more about the Wikipedia policies. Once again, sorry. We really can't afford to lose someone as active as you as an editor, but I just don't see you as needing admin tools. —Mets501talk 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    Please rest assured that whatever the outcome of this RFA discussion, you won't lose me as editor! I am just seeking the chance to do a bit more, in a more efficient way than I can do it at the moment, and I have learnt a lot from this process. --BrownHairedGirl 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak, veeery weak oppose. I'm a declared enemy of editcountitis and similar non-representative ways of measuring a user's involvement in the project; I believe BHG's wiki-enthusiasm is out of question here, and I am very impressed with the work she has performed here so far. A few things concern me here tho, namely: a) the extremely low levels of participation in Wikipedia space (compared to her enormous activity in namespace), which makes me wonder about her knowledge of WP policies and procedures. b) very little contact-talk-interaction with other users raises questions about how she will manage when confronted with potential conflict. c) almost no involvement in admin-related tasks. d) nearly 7,000 edits in two months only (fantastic!) raises however concern about potential burnout. With all this in mind, allow me to congratulate you on your amazing levels of participation and your contributions, and in the unlikely case this fails, I encourage you to nominate yourself again in a while... I might even do it for you myself! Kisses, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose At present, the low number of wikispace edits cause me concern. There is not yet sufficient evidence that editor has a grasp of policy and process, though her devotion to the project is impressive. Hang around project-space a bit more, and I will gladly support in a few months. Xoloz 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. 7900 edits is good, but not so good when only 100 or so are in the Wikipedia namespace. Royboycrashfan 01:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Very reluctant oppose for all of the reasons above. I do hope you'll try again in a few months, when I'll likely support. Keep up the good work, which is most impressive! Sandy 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, you need to balance out your edits, need more project and defintely more user talk space edits.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Reluctant oppose. Edit count and time with Wikipedia more than sufficient. But needs more time with things like RCPatrol, AfD, etc. I sense a reluctance to confront. RCPatrolling and AIV can be VERY confrontational. At the ame time you need to distinguish those who nee help from those who need blocking. Needs more experience.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Lop-sided contributions to Main namespace, most of which is category sorting; very little in discussion of policy or on talk pages, scant participation on any deletion pages where one can lose one's nerve very quickly. Impressive edit count though. --Knucmo2 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think it's fair to count my contributions as category-sorting: nearly all of the articles to which I have added categories are also ones to which I have added substantive content, in some cases significant amounts, and/or copyedited to assert notability in a clear introductory paragraph. --BrownHairedGirl 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose lack of project edits. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. So weak that I can't lift a penny oppose; really nice editor and amazing rate of editing, but not well balanced enough. Sorry. Mopper Speak! 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Reluctant but firm Oppose. I've had some recent dealings with this editor, and she's very nice. She's also a great article writer. However, I very much think she isn't ready for the mop and it would be better for her to wait than to be thrown into the deep end too soon. I'm confident I'll be able to support next time, when she has more project space involvement under her belt. --kingboyk 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose don't need more admins. Ardenn 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Lighten up! You've made your point eh Myciconia 08:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose - a little more experience wouldn't go amiss. --Doc ask? 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Opppose Per knucmo2Profundity06 06:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per JoshuaZ. Sorry! I think you need broader experience. FloNight talk 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The following contributions were added after the deadline.
  17. Oppose per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 13:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I've got mixed feelings--your a great user, but see JoshuaZ's oppose. --Primate#101 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning towards a reluctant oppose. Seems to be a great editor, but adminship isn't a reward for good editors (see WP:BARNSTAR). I see no need for the admin tools yet, nor enough involvement outside of article space. --kingboyk 09:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. --kingboyk 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning towards oppose --T-rex 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral Awesome article contribution, just need a little more time with project space contributions OSU80 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. OSU80 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. With more interaction in Wikipedia: and User talk: namespaces then I would have no hestiation in voting support. You have a fantastic attitude to the project and a frankly astounding contribution rate so I'm sure you'll make a great adminsitrator when when your a bit more familiar with the janitorial side of things. Thryduulf 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Waffle I like her attitude, but it takes more than atitude to be a good administrix. Brown Haired Girl needs moxy! She may want to consider changing her user name to something more fear inspiring before reapplying. Ghosts&empties 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    What?? That's a lame reason. Grandmasterka 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't believe that asserting authority requires fear — quite the contrary! From fifteen years of experience online, I firmly believe that authority is most effectively implemented by showing consistency and firmness tempered with a liberal dose of generosity and approachability. I have learnt the hard way that just as a woolly cuddly laissez-faire approach makes a bad admin, so does the evil-monster approach. --BrownHairedGirl 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    I really like the username. ;-) Grandmasterka 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Your awesome article contributions have moved me from Oppose. You need to participate in the project namespace. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral fantastic contibutions so far, but I'd like to see greater participation in the project sphere.--cj | talk 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, need more work in the Wikipedia: namespace. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, Not opposed to her, but believe that maybe now is not the right time for her to join the admin team.--Irishpunktom\talk 23:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Excellent mainspace contributions, obviously a talented and commited contributor, but needs wider contributions in other project namespaces and user talk interaction. Please do this and I will gladly support a future nomination. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User's last 5000 edits:

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user BrownHairedGirl (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 33 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 13hr (UTC) -- 10, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 97.22% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 98.4% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day (current): 152.22
Recognized significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 16.5%
Unique pages edited: 2152 | Average edits per page: 2.32 | Edits on top: 32.22%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 21.66%
Minor edits (non reverts): 76.88%
Marked reverts: 0.82%
Unmarked edits: 0.64%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 89.66% (4483) | Article talk: 1.24% (62)
User: 1.22% (61) | User talk: 1.22% (61)
Wikipedia: 2.42% (121) | Wikipedia talk: 0.02% (1)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.28% (14)
Category: 3.76% (188)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.18% (9)
  1. Hi BHG - I request you to always keep a learning attitude in reference to your low count of projectspace and talk edits. I think you need to develop these. Rama's Arrow 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the observation -- you're right. The problem I find there is that the areas I have been working on don't seem to attract many other editors. Maybe I should set out to more actively engage those who do appear? --BrownHairedGirl 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is partially due to your answering others on your own talkpage instead of theirs. I think you should increase activity in projectspace. Rama's Arrow 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've seen lots of BrownHairedGirl's edits, but she's never done anything remotely causing any sort of doubt that I would wish to raise on her talk page. I was thinking about giving her a barnstar, by coincidence, just before I came across this RfA, though... Palmiro | Talk 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: The two tasks which I have in mind are reverting vandalism, and asisting in the AfD/RfD/CFD process. I already have enough experience of vandalism as an ordinary editor that I woud like to be able to help more, and while I am reasonably familar with RfD/AdD/CfD etc, I would regard myself as an apprentice there initially.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Three big areas of work have felt very fruitful:
  1. Disambiguation. It was the first task I took on as an editor, and it's still a bit of housekeeping I enjoy. Sadly, there always seems to be a lot to be done, and guidelines on disambiguation seem poorly understood.
  2. Category:British MPs (and sub-categories), where I have created dozens of new articles, expanded others, and added lots (hundreds?) of succession boxes to assist navigation.
  3. Work on Irish politicians, particularly in the categories Category:Members of Seanad Éireann by session and Category:Teachtaí Dála and Category:Former Teachtaí Dála. I have reorganised the categories, created dozens of new articles, and expanded mnay others. It is a work in progress, but I believe that I helped to significantly enhance wikipedia's coverage of the members of the Oireachtas, building on the great work that others have done and are doing.
Two individual articles:
  • My favourite article: Cathcart Wason. An interesting person, with enough sources available to make a reasonably intersting and detailed article. It's a long way from featured article status, but it feels reasonably well-rounded and unstubby.
  • An article in the making: Families in the Oireachtas. A spinoff of the work above, still in its early stages, but with the potential to become quite an intersting list.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The conflicts I have had have mostly been minor ones in my early days as an editor, and were mostly due to my mistakes — I have learnt to read the guidelines carefully when someone objects to my actions, because I have found that my critics have usually been right!
I also ran into a disagreement with User:Pastorwayne over a series of articles he had created, where I object to what I saw as gross over-classification. I found it a slightly difficult situation, because I felt that I was right according to the guidelines, but wrong in that I was getting into an argument. In the end, I took a break and started on other areas of editing, and I think that I can loook back and see that some of my suggestions were taken on board.
For the future, I think that the three most important tools in avoiding or resolving conflict are my kettle, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF:
  • The kettle to make a cup of tea and take a break if I feel myself getting in any way annoyed by another wikipedian;
  • WP:AGF to remind me to keep on trying to see things from the other user's perspective
  • WP:AAGF to remind me that the other editor means well too!. --BrownHairedGirl 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.