Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dinoguy1000

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dinoguy1000[edit]

Final (83/1/2); Closed by Rlevse at 20:39, 09 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) – Dinoguy1000 has been an editor since 2006 and achieved a reputation as an active and courteous user. I noticed Dino in my work and decided to nominate him.

Dino has over 11,000 edits and appears to be skilled in a variety of technical areas like templates. He is also a dedicated member of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject and has contributed a substantial amount of content. From his CSD tagging, I am confident he knows the deletion policy.

I believe that if selected, Dinoguy will continue his technical work and will assist in performing admin tasks. He appears to understand policy well and is able to interact with others. MBisanz talk 08:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks for nominating me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I don't have anything specific in mind right now, but there have been times in my template work where I've had to make an editprotected request to get a noncontroversial edit performed. As time permits in the future, I may also look at the occasional CSD, PROD, and XFD; I participate in discussions on MediaWiki talk pages often enough that I may find myself making edits in the MediaWiki namespace; and I help out enough at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs that being able to make fixes to Twinkle and Friendly would be good. I've also had an idea for a side-project for some time now involving cleaning up or offering to clean up other users' CSS and JS which would obviously require the ability to edit those files (though I'd plan that out pretty carefully first, due to the potential damage and irritation that could be caused).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This one's a toughie... I'd say that I'm particularly pleased with my addition of auto-hiding groups in {{Navbox generic}}, functionality that has been retained through to the current {{Navbox}} and also added to the other navigationbox templates. I also generalized the sublist template of {{Japanese episode list}} from a Dragon Ball-specific one created by User:Collectonian, and then backported it to a version that works with {{Episode list}}. I've also made substantial contributions to the anime and manga infobox and the WP:ANIME banner (and in the latter case, I am working on updating it to use {{WPBannerMeta}}). For one last template example, I also updated {{Anime by decade category header}} and {{Manga by decade category header}}, before combining both into a single {{Animanga by year category header}}. For project work, I have also put a lot of work into WP:ANIME's deletion sorting list and its archive (being able to peek at deleted page histories would definitely help me out here), and I've hunted down and added a lot of items to WP:ANIME's news page. In the article namespace, I think I would have to say the updates I've made to List of Oh My Goddess! chapters are pretty decent.
I hope that updating {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} to use {{WPBannerMeta}} would involve updating {{WPBannerMeta}}, as the former template is far more advanced? G.A.Stalk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, WP:ANIME's banner is more advanced than WPBM? I'm pretty sure it's actually the other way around... I don't think our banner does anything currently that WPBM can't handle (it's just a matter of me looking carefully enough at what WPBM can do and trying to find some sample banners to look off of). Perhaps we should move this discussion elsewhere, though? =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a few conflicts in the past, and made some bad edits/edit summaries, but these are generally directed at content as opposed to editors. My first major conflict was a rather stupid argument on Digimon Adventure over the title parameter of one of {{Infobox animanga}}'s components that resulted in a temporary full-protection of the article (for the record, I've since changed my stance on that issue, and intend to start a discussion on it at some point). There was also an edit summary I left on a navbox template that wasn't particularly civil, but again, I was only commenting on the content, and not any of the editors who had written it.

Additional question from HJ Mitchell

4. Which area or areas of Wikipedia policy, if any, would you be most active in trying to change?
A: I don't typically involve myself on policy (or guideline/essay, for that matter) discussion, and really don't have much interest in trying to change anything like that. My own observations on Wikipedia suggest that by and large, current policy functions quite well; it is when individual users come in on some sort of crusade or with something to prove, that the collaborative editing process tends to break down. Ignoring that, wherever policy doesn't fit well with a given situation, we have WP:IAR and if it becomes enough of a problem, the community seems to be pretty amenable to making additions or changes to existing policy after suitable discussion.

Additional question from Hobit

5. Say we have an in-arguably notable porn actress from the 1960s who is still alive today. No known public domain pictures of her are known to exist and she is known to not be interested in having pictures taken of her. A user has posted a (clothed) full-body picture of the actress from a 1960's magazine arguing that even if a picture of her could be taken, it wouldn't represent the "characteristics" for which she is notable. It is taken to IfD where 2 admins argue it is replaceable and 3 other users argue that any picture would be hard to get and the characteristics issue is valid. How do you close it and why?
A: Wow, this question was quite tough for me to answer because I don't normally deal with either images or biographies (much less BLPs). However, after a bit of searching, I found Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2, which makes the situation quite clear. To quote, "...for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." So, in response to your question, if the actress's notability rested solely or significantly on her career as a porn actress, I would close the discussion as keeping the non-free image of her since no free images from the relevant period are known to exist, and no obtainable free image of her would be directly relevant to her career, which is the characteristic she is notable for. However, if a significant portion of her notability comes from some event other than her career, especially one later in her life (closer to the present day), I would probably close the discussion as a delete, since in that case, any free image which could be obtained - regardless of how difficult it may be to obtain - would be more directly relevant to some of her notable characteristics (my exact closure in this latter case would depend on exactly how and why she was notable, beyond her career). I decided to go ahead and answer this question without waiting to log in, I hope no one minds... =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Jennavecia
6a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: Hmm... now I'm wondering how I moved from templates to BLPs. ;P The current BLP situation you're referring to is vandalism to BLPs, especially adding unsourced and potentially libelous content to them, right? In that case, I would say that we are actually doing quite well - to the best of my knowledge, most BLPs that are likely targets for such additions are also heavily watched pages, so any such additions get reverted very quickly. Obviously, the problem gets worse as you move further from these main BLPs into less trafficked areas, but I think that newpages and recentchanges patrollers still manage to catch most of this stuff.
6b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: I've never bothered to read any of the flagged revisions proposals, simply because it really doesn't interest me - it's a powerful tool for fighting vandalism, but the main application it's being discussed for is specifically on BLPs, which I usually avoid (as with all biography articles). I think that flagged revisions, in some form, would be immensely useful; I quite like the FLPPR proposal. Semi-protection is only suitable in a limited set of circumstances, would not stop persistent vandals (who would simply register sleeper accounts), and (in the case of blanket semi-protection on all BLPs) would only hurt BLPs that have no history of vandalism.
6c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: I honestly cannot provide a satisfactory answer for this (not for a lack of trying; I spent quite some time thinking it over), and in such cases, I would almost certainly defer to the judgment of an admin with experience in BLP issues.
6d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A: Once again (and after thinking this over quite carefully as well and doing some research into what policy/guidelines have to say on the matter), I would say that my lack of experience with BLPs means that I would seek the advice of an admin more well versed on BLP issues.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Just in case anyone else had this same confusion...I should just note that Dinoguy1000 is not the same user as Dinoguy2. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro(talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several people who have commented below have noted concerns with my signature. However, I really don't like working on it much (I've got it where *I* like it ;) ), so I'd appreciate others' insight into how I may be able to improve it. Comments and suggested sigs are welcome at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Wait, you mean he isn't actually an administrator? I've seen him around for ages, and have just always assumed that he was one. We'll let's fix that now. Dinoguy would be a definite positive to the project as an administrator. Support NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Jake Wartenberg 15:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I'm impressed that the candidate willingly points out situations where he shouldn't have said something in such a manner. I trust him. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - No reason not to. — neuro(talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. If that edit summary is what he considers uncivil, this guy is a saint. Tan | 39 16:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must concede that I thought that as well. :) — neuro(talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not so much that as I got a message about it from the template's creator/main contributor after the fact, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to point it out. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 16:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support based on my (rather limited) experience with him. He seems quite civil and intelligent. WP:WTHN? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - looks like he knows what he's doing. I trust him with the tools. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Solid. Good find, MBisanz. Nice technical work, Dino - best of luck to you! Keeper | 76 16:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Tenure, experience, clean block log and civility, OK I don't understand all the technical stuff dino wants to do but I'm happy to have him do it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. We need more people who care about the Wikipedia's technical side and 11,000 edits is certainly good enough. —Admiral Norton (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I'm really impressed by his contributions at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs and the most recent archive; people who can do that work and also communicate about it in a clear and friendly manner are exceptional. People who do it for free are priceless. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Very good editor, the only thing I see that bugs me is your signature. You don't have to change it, but it is confusing. Malinaccier (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was originally "—Dinoguy1000", but I got tired of its rather bland appearance, and since I do so much work on Japan-related subjects, the Japanese seemed appropriate. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see is squares, and I assume a fair number of editors have the same problem. Obviously I don't have the font installed, but it does cause slight difficulties. Having the latin-based username in parenthesis is a good idea, though, nice touch. Useight (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Need more template admins, and this one seems to be suitable. Ceranthor 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support no indication he'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - well of course the "Ruler of the World" should have a mop! But seriously, plenty of good contributions, great temperament, has experience at admining another wiki - my only question is: What took you so long to step up and ask for the tools? Best of luck. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Full support from me. I've seen this editor around and have every confidence in him. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Like his content contributions, work at WP:ANIME, the template work, and the cool head. Also, now he can stop bothering me for history merges ;) — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whaaat, why would I stop bothering you? Bugging you for stuff is too much fun to pass up! XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support As nom. MBisanz talk 19:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, but agree with Malinaccer and Useight that you should probably change your sig so people can better know what to call you. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having funky characters in your sig (I know I do), but it probably shouldn't be your entire sig, because it gets difficult people who can't read it (either because they don't have the fonts installed or don't know Japanese). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Both of users accounts make good contributions and clearly does good work in the Anime Wikiproject. Users been here for a good period of time and done a good number of edits through numerous IPs, and 2 different accounts. Also excellent answers and excellent nom.--(NGG) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, since when do I have a second account? If you're talking about Dinoguy2, he's not the same person as me (and I've actually pointed out our similar usernames to him before). As for IPs, I've edited under a number of them, but this is the only one I make any significant edits under at this time. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, I misread your comment. I thought it said you were that other account sorry.--(NGG) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Solid Support Of course. -download | sign! 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support tempodivalse [☎] 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Giants27 T/C 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support on strength of contributions but I agree that he should change his sig. I don't like sigs that I have to mouse over to see who it is -- it wastes my time. Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per nom too few admins, alrighty? Dlohcierekim 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support solid credentials in the field that you want to work in. ThemFromSpace 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per overall record and comments above. No concerns noted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I met the candidate once. Just like everyone have noticed, he is a civil and sensible editor with a great contribution history. I have no concern about him having the admin bits. Best wishes for him and our community.--Caspian blue 23:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good user, and currently not enough administrators. Wizardman 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, as per nom. Extremepro (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Too few admins currently :)! Also a fine canidate, if that edit summary is the most uncivil thing he has done, then he is reasonably civil. Respectfully suggest he change that sig to something more computers have the font for (or make the latin name at the end bigger) Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Generally (ignoring tiny blemishes we all have) civil, professional, and cool-headed. Excellent templating skills. Would be a good addition to the mop-wielders. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Why not no flags here good luck. -- Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SupportCan see no reason why not-please change the sig though! dottydotdot (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No concerns here. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Too many admins currently. Great user, will make good admin. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support see no problems in the last year, good answers. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support When Dinoguy and I got into a bit of a disagreement about a page name, he was very nice and civil about the whole thing. So, yes, I think he would make a good admin. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Of course. Great user. Pmlinediter  Talk 15:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Looks great! - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. - filelakeshoe 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - No concerns. Tiptoety talk 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Definitely! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. SupportI can't belive he's not an admin already!--Abce2|Howdy! 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. SupportExcellent user, tool access will be not only of benefit to the users daily activities, but to the improvement of wikipedia in general Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I admire your honesty in answering question #5. It's important to know policy but I think it is also important to admit you don't have all the answers but you know where to look it up or whom to ask. The latter makes a more humble administrator. Valley2city‽ 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I see no point in lying about what you do and don't know, and it tends to get you in trouble. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Please become an admin --PirateSmackKArrrr! 08:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per MBisanz. がんばって  Chzz  ►  10:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support mainly per MBisanz nomination and answer to Q4. I'm glad this user sees adminship as a complement to, not a substitute for, ordinary editing. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support No reason no to. America69 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Full Support He does really good work and giving these tools would allow him to expand his abilities to help wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Only positive, constructive and friendly editing to be found. Dinoguy1000 communicates and builds consensus as he improves the encyclopedia. With a demonstrated need for system operator permissions he has met my criteria to be trusted with Adminship. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. No reason not to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support shows good sense and reticence. . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  65. Support. Answers given to questions and site experience both make me confident that this user would do well as an administrator. Good luck! One (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - good contributor, likely to make a good admin; a slightly-annoying signature is no reason to oppose. :) Robofish (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support - if I was ever fit to be an administrator, Dinoguy1000 certainly is. He has improved Wikipedia and would be a great admin. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Fit for the tools. — Σxplicit 03:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Dinoguy1000 has extensive know-how about template coding, and it would be a net gain if he were to edit them to add new features, or clean up code when needed. G.A.Stalk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Certainly, no alarms seen here. --GedUK  11:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, as though you need it. Experienced and trustworthy editor. FlyingToaster 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - everything seems to be in order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - good contributor with good track record. I see no problem here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. For being honest and open to criticism. Kaaveh (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Trust the judgement of Mbisanz and user has been around since October 2006 and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support A welcome addition to the ranks. -- Banjeboi 11:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Looks good to me.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Support as he has been an excellent contributor to WP:ANIME for a good long while, and is generally all-around helpful. I see nothing which would lead me to believe the tools would be abused, and plenty of instances where the tools would prove useful to him. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - veteran editor with 10,000 edits, rollback rights, no issues. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. ダイノガイ>九千! — CharlotteWebb 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support DinoGuy1000 should be an asset on wikipedia; Good contrib, mainspace edits, and rollback rights used maturely. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support will do fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong support. No problems. --candle•wicke 01:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page, where it belongs. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. On the oppose aspect, although I won't oppose per one diff, but I can't support when I see comments like this in which 1) who knows why anyone creates a particular article and if we're going to make assumptions, we should WP:AGF and 2) that's not really a reason for deletion anyway, i.e. a blend of a WP:PERNOM followed by an unproven assumption about the motivations' of the article's creator. Anyway, I would like to see more thoughtfulness and considerateness from those who have the means of closing such discussions. On the positive side of things are that the candidate has never been blocked and User:Dinoguy1000#Awards. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that that AFD discussion occurred nearly a year ago, and I've matured a great deal as an editor since then. Looking back on it now, I'd largely have to agree with your assessment of my !vote in that discussion, and I actually gave a much "better" delete rationale in the second AFD discussion for that article, a little more than a month ago. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the polite reply; yes, although I still disagree with your stance in the second AfD (just not convinced why the need to redlink rather than redirect), it is definitely more of an appropriate rationale than the one in the first AfD and I may reconsider here accordingly. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Candidate has no idea what the BLP problem is, much less a desire to help fix it. I would oppose, but I've decided it's counter-productive to the cause. لennavecia 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was kinda anticipating this. Biographies have never held any interest for me, and there's plenty of work to do in the fields I am interested in, so I'm certainly not going to apologize for this. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an unnecessary response. لennavecia 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dinoguy1000&oldid=1142503863"