User talk:Giggy/Oh no, not another 2008 AC elections voting guide!

Strong support, but
I wish that wasn't two of your three sentences about me. Mods delete posts like those, and most of the time it's for benign reasons, like posting the material to a different thread. I don't tend to do that with old posts&mdash;in fact, I've never asked for the special super-editing privilege because I don't like how people can change very old material without even an "edited on" note.

You are the first to actually endorse me, and I appreciate it, but I doubt the rationale will convince anyone; just the opposite, in fact. At any rate, I promise never to do it again. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was posts like this that were slightly annoying. Anyway I had been planning to add more to my comments here, so I went ahead and added some related to you, since you asked so nicely :) Giggy (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Usually the mods catch those faster; this is gone now. That was an example of moving a post from one thread to another. The messageboards I was raised on had prohibitions against double posting on the same subforum, but allowed users to delete their own posts. The norm was to combine comments to several different people and threads in one post. My posts therefor often address issues on more than one thread. I sometimes want to move them, so have to empty posts and repost; it's an old habit and not intended to deceive. Mods usually catch them and delete. But, like I said, I'll stop. I doubt it's important for the office of Arbitrator. Cool Hand Luke 01:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a big deal, just a minor irritation. I couldn't list only positives, could I now? Giggy (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just that erasing posts sounds really sinister, and doesn't seem like it would impact my ArbCom work. Surely there's something on-wiki you dislike? Cool Hand Luke 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

On articles and the liking thereof
It turns out, in fact, that I very much love the articles. That's exactly why I don't contribute very much to mainspace: I suck greatly at it and would rather help the talented writers do their job than mess things up by meddling directly myself. :-) That might be overstating matters just a bit, but article writing really isn't where my talents lie and I love Wikipedia so much I tried to find a niche where I could contribute constructively anyways.

I am, first and above all, a Wikipedia reader; and that colors everything I do here. This is why I have little patience with vandals and warriors that leave a swath of destruction behind them, and those who would treat the encyclopedia as a battlefield to be twisted to "their side's" purposes. That's also why you rarely see me indulge in the politics or the drama: they are, at best, useless for the encyclopedia. I really don't care which side any editor is on, or which Just Cause(tm) they think they are fighting for, because all I care about is the actual articles. What I'm trying to say is that my inability to be very good or prolific at contributing contents isn't an indication of my care for the articles, but of my talent: I work hard to contribute with the things I am good at. I run for an ArbCom seat because I truly believe I am fair enough, rational enough, and competent enough to do a good job filling it, and thus contribute to Wikipedia the best I can. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * *nods* I'm planning to back and look for some diffs to give you an idea of where I had that original impression (these are initial thoughts, hopefully the big letters added to the page will make that more clear). In any case, I'm not anticipating opposing you on those grounds at the moment. Giggy (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Table design
Glad you liked it! I didn't realise it was good enough to warrant others actually using it. :) Interesting thoughts on the election, btw. AGK 22:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)