Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/psufan2007

psufan2007
removed by Cecropia @ 00:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC) as premature and unsupported (0/8/0); original end 2:08 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I am the editor of my high school newspaper. I am exceedingly proficient in editing for content as well as style. I have very little experience in physically editing Wikipedia articles. Long before I created my account, I rewrote the article on Lee Strasberg. I know my lack of experience may be a check against me, but see it as learning the system from the ground up, in the Wiki spirit, instead of with a ready-made agenda. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by psufan2007 (talk • contribs) 2:08 UTC, 15 July 2005

Support

Oppose
 * 1) &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC). Sorry, but you only have 5 edits to your registered account, no userpage, and a 'please stop removing content' notice on your talk page as almost the sole comment, and you added this nomination to the main page [incorrectly] also from an anon address. If you stay for a few months and show us how well you are at editing content, I'll vote for.
 * 2) Obviously you don't meet the requirements for adminship (edits, Wikispace experience, general know-how, good faith, etc.), but don't stop trying. I'm sure a few months of editing will be greatly beneficial and stand you in good stead for a run at adminship. Just to help us voters, could you please link to you page of contributions under an IP address. Thanks. Harro5 02:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Simply not enough information about this editor to make an informed decision. Also doesn't help that he hasn't answered the Standard Questions.  Kelly Martin 03:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the self-nomination was originally listed on WP:RFA itself, and I had to move it here (see page history). I'm not sure he/she was aware of the questions. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 04:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Nowhere near enough edits or Wikipedia experience, and being an editor of a high school newspaper shouldn't be criteria for becoming an admin. Get more experience, come back in a few months and I may consider supporting. Columbia 03:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely oppose. With only one day of logged-in contributions, this user has effectively no experience on Wikipedia at this time, so (s)he does not qualify for adminship at all.  I suggest that (s)he try again in nine months.  Denelson83  05:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I applaud the enthusiasm, but - as it says at the top of this page - three months and 1000 edits is the usual bare minimum. Also, editing articles is fine, but admins do far more than that, so it's worth getting involved in and finding out about some of the other facets of wikipedia before trying for admin status. If your enthusiasm is anything to go by, I'm sure you'll eventually get to admin status - but now is far too soon. Grutness...  wha?  12:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - 6 edits?? I'd recommend waiting a few months (and about 1000 edits) and withdrawing the nomination. --Idont Havaname 20:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I was only the copy editor. :( Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * Kate's Tool shows 5 (not like I needed it to count). &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 02:49, 16 July 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.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 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.