Today: Tuesday 27 July 2021 , 8:20 am


Requests for adminship Brian0918

Last updated 4 Month , 24 Day 11 Views

In this page talks about ( Requests for adminship Brian0918 ) It was sent to us on 04/03/2021 and was presented on 04/03/2021 and the last update on this page on 04/03/2021

Your Comment

Enter code
final (25/5/1) ending 20:35 5 March 2005 (UTC)
3555 edits. Notable contributions include:
  • Entirity of Great Lakes Storm of 1913, the Featured Article for Feb 27
    • I just noticed that the Signpost wrote a story on this article. Woohoo!
  • Organization of all existing and non-existing American Civil War battles into categories by theater and campaign
  • Creation of Campaignboxes for all Civil War battles, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles
  • Addition of battleboxes to almost all currently existing Civil War battles, including addition of pictures for each. Also, created numerous articles on battles and people involved (eg Eppa Hunton, Edward Dickinson Baker).
  • Creation and implementation of :Template:Superherobox (example) as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics
  • Added over 160 public domain images.
  • Also, previous involvement in Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, reverting vandalism, etc.
  • Battle of Hampton Roads collaboration with User:Vaoverland and others to become a Featured Article
brian0918™ 20:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. support SYSS Mouse 23:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Will having admin abilities cause you to stop writing good content? I hope not. dbenbenn talk 02:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Shanes 02:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Geoff/Gsl 02:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Very deserving of adminship. Rje 02:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ryan! Talk 04:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Tuf-Kat 06:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  8. CheekyMonkey 13:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. You haven't edited much in the last couple months. You must really like this user to come from your editing hiatus in order to vote. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  10. I don't think I've ever encountered him. --brian0918™ 19:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. It's certainly true that I've taken a break from editing recently. However, I've still noticed the work that Brian0918 has done. CheekyMonkey 21:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Meets my new admin criterion, jguk 14:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. Alright by me. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. Pmeisel 15:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. There is no one I know who is more dedicated to Wikipedia. -Casito 21:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  16. Neutralitytalk 02:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Language is a bit colourful but should be okay. JuntungWu 16:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  18. Did a lot of good work on the battleboxes. I thought his "police alerted" messages were pretty funny. big_hal 19:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support - We've worked together well a number of articles, his contributions led to Battle of Hampton Roads earning FA status, I have been watching (bit not participating) in the article on Abraham Lincoln and he has done well keeping NPOV on a controversial subject. His battleboxes are a real plus,a nd similar work would benefit other WP projects, which I recently asked him to consider expanding involvement to include. I enjoy collaborating with him. I caught the "police alert, too". Just enough to spook some casual vandals, but nothing more than mild bluff, harmless, but possibly effective, and good for a laugh! Vaoverland 23:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. ugen64 23:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support. In my opinion, the "Police is on the way" edit summaries are not inappropriate, and it shows Brian's sense of humour. --Lst27 (talk) 12:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support I have only had good experiences with him, and I agree with Lst27 comment above. bakuzjw (aka 578) 21:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. SUPPORT: I have no reason to oppose. "Police on the way" is humourous, not offensive. Jordi·✆ 02:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. -- Darwinek 19:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support – I've had the pleasure of working with Brian alot recently, and he's proven to be very creative and willing to work with others. I have no doubt that he would make an excellent administrator. – ClockworkSoul 06:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. fair enough, dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support Scott Gall 20:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. No user page, and he redlinks his username in his sig - annoying. Some very inappropriate edit summaries (revert vandalism, IP traced; authorities alerted; police on their way has been used by him dozens of times). Seems a bit aggressive and protective of his work. Prefer to wait a while, when someone can nominate him again. -- Netoholic User talk:Netoholic@ 16:37, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  2. Strongly opposed. Yeah, that police alerted thing is a bit messed up, and he's done it at least a dozen times! Other interesting edits include the removal of a question on his talk page, calling it vandalism, and asking 3 times in the edit summary for the user to be banned, a sarcastic personal attack, tagging an article a CSD when it should have been made into a redirect, tagging an article a CSD without checking the history, etc. User:CryptoDerkCryptoDerk 18:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Now strongly opposed. Brian0918 has admitted to making numerous mistakes yet asked me to withdraw my objections. I said no and explained why (below), and now, a day later, he has left a message on my talk page requesting I strike out parts of my objection. For instance, he acknowledged putting a speedy tag on a valid article without checking the history, and has now asked me to strike out the objection as invalid. CryptoDerk 17:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Numerous = 3. As for your specific example, that was an accident on my part, I thought I was on the New Articles page at the time. I did not call your objections invalid, but asked you to decide if all of them are still valid. I would not ask you to retract your objection, but to retract any parts which you felt had been clarified. Since you still consider them valid, that'll be the end of it, although I'd like to clear these things up instead of escalating it. Thanks. --brian0918™ 18:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. : I absolutely oppose admins with blank user pages. A blank user page makes the user look like a new user, confuses other users, and is generally unprofessional in appearance. —Lowellian (talk) 01:39, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. :*I now have a user page. Originally, it was an attempt at modesty. I had planned to put info about me on my talk page. --brian0918™ 02:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. :**No longer opposing; changing vote to Neutral now that the user page exists. "Police alert" thing seems a bit bizarre. —Lowellian (talk) 04:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. :Annoying sig. Neutralitytalk 01:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  9. :* Changed. --brian0918™ 02:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  10. I don't usually vote on WP:RFA, and realize that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything except make an enemy, but this post to WP:VIP earlier today has me very concerned. The edit he cites could well have been accidental, and calls for a or at most a on Hallosachin's talk page, not a call for a block—a block that, in a few days, brian0918 will be able carry out himself. While he is a very strong contributor, becoming an administrator is not a reward for good writers. —Korath (User talk:KorathTalk) 16:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  11. I wasn't actually serious about blocking (bad wording on my part), since he had only made one edit, but at the time I didn't know if he was going to continue "vandalizing". The tests sound like a better idea. I've added "welcome" and "test" to his talk page. -- 

There are no Comments yet

last seen
Most vists