Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Petaholmes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Petaholmes

final (31/0/0) ending 22:08 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Very good user. He made many articles about agriculture and biology. He made about 6100 edits since October 2004. I believe, that he will be a good admin. -- Darwinek 22:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
I accept, also I am a she :)--nixie 01:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Sure -- Darwinek 22:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Consistently level-headed in my experience. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Geoff/Gsl 03:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian (t) (c) 04:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  5. utcursch | talk 06:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Valuable addition to the WikiTeam. Radiant_* 09:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Cool. JuntungWu 11:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sjakkalle 12:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  9. Sure. - RedWordSmith 15:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mild support. Support for of all the work, mild because all edits should have summary. Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. I've come across this user and have seen nothing but good work. Support. Mgm|(talk) 19:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Zzyzx11 02:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support --AYArktos 02:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, good work on science and biographies.-gadfium 04:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely. Ambi 07:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support one of those "I thought she ALREADY WAS an admin" votes.  ALKIVAR™ 07:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. She's a knowledgeable and careful editor, and will make a good admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Thumbs up from me too. Grutness|hello? 12:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Aye. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support - She one of those "I can't believe she's not an admins". She would made an excellent addition to the admin ranks. – ClockworkSoul 13:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support - Her articles are well written and her edits are right no the mark. She would be a great addition to the admin ranks. DavidMendoza 22:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Kingturtle 05:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Enthusiastic support Tuf-Kat 06:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Cyberjunkie 07:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Looking through her contributions I see high-quality work, and I think she'd be a good admin too. Antandrus 17:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. Everyking 22:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  28. Obviously not evil, I support. --Bjarki 00:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. User and talk pages show us an editor who communicates well and works well with others. Jonathunder 02:47, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  30. PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. --Lst27 (talk) 21:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • According to the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits about 3100 of my edits are in the main namespace--nixie 01:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That list is a month old, so you're selling yourself a bit short. Your current count is 3729. —Korath (Talk) 01:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am curious about your edit [1] - why did you asses the event so important? Pavel Vozenilek 02:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The Candle demonstration in Bratislava article was an orphan, this was one place I could find to internally link the article and it seemed relevant given that it is an important event in the history of Slovakia and that it occured in Bratislava, I also added the event to the chronological History of Bratislava. If I was incorrect in my judgement be bold and remove the link.--nixie 02:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The change was reverted immediatelly, it was event of rather low relevancy. Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Clearing up the (sometimes backlogged) copyright violations, page moves, and speedy deletions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think that I did A good job cleaning up Plant breeding from a poorly tranlated article to one that discusses the topic in a way that is easy to follow for a non-biologist. I'm also pleased with the current versions of golden rice, polymer banknotes, Lost City (hydrothermal field), Agriculture in Australia and desert locust to list a few of my contributions. I like it when I write something and other people help to make it better.
I have been working through the orphan pages, creating internal links, merging and nominating for deletion where necesary, I revert vandalism where I see it, and I have participated in a number of wiki synax projects and the image tagging project. These janitorial type of edits are often just as rewarding as a nice article, because they make Wikipedia a better organised place.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. The areas I edit seem to be generally uncontentious. I have recently run into a few anonymous users that repeatedly create new articles from large chunks of coprighted text, geneticist biographies of all things, and when the copyvio notice goes up repost, or insert the information at a different version of the persons name. I have asked them to stop, but where they have been especially persistent, if I was an admin I would be able to block such disruptive behaviour if it was necessary. Unless asked, it would be out of character of me to throw myself into a POV edit war situation.