User talk:2over0

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2over0.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ACE 2010

ArbCom election season is almost upon us once more, with !! voting set to open in about two score of hours. In keeping with tradition, I will be leaning heavily on SandyGeorgia's field guide to the candidates, with a heavy dollop of reading the statements and questions. Also as per usual, I plan to vote neutral on any candidate with whose work I am not at least passingly familiar unless I find a red flag that indicates an oppose is warranted. I find this year's slate of default questions to be not particularly useful or insightful, but YMMV; I am only really interested in one question anyway. Comments and questions directed at me or discussion of my opinions are welcome here; general discussion and questions for the candidates should go on the actual election pages.

Balloonman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - generally favorable, looking for a reason to support; activity level, though?

Left as neutral. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - yes, unless something turns up

Not expecting an last minute issues, and generally impressed. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - probably not
David Fuchs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - leaning support, but probably stick with neutral
Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - a solid candidate and a voice of reason; not too green for the role.

On reconsideration, I think I have to stick with neutral here. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - No. Hir extended statement on the matter is a telling mix of more than I saw at the time, and woefully inadequate.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - concerned regarding his willingness and ability to investigate complex disputes and willingness to take decisive action where warranted
GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - support, even with the access caveats; the no-nonsense party generally needs more representation at this project (not to be confused with the damage done by cowboy/girl editors and admins, of course). On a partially related note, I support User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility and oppose pure civility blocks; when incivility rises to the level of disruption or is likely to drive off contributors, it can and should be dealt with as such.

Edit: probably not worth it, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harej (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - neutral, but purely moral support for the bots
Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - yes, please
Jclemens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I disagree with JC on a couple of meta issues, but should do fine on ArbCom; will support unless my ballot unexpectedly fills up

Wizardman raises concerns - needs review. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - I think so - need to peruse answers a little better and refresh my memory on other issues
Loosmark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - no thanks
Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - yes, please; also support using WMF funds to support research towards mind uploading so several instances of NYB can be run on the project concurrently.
Off2riorob (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - no thanks
PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - nothing really exciting to me here, but leaning support pending review
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - probably will be breaking with SG to support here - Sandstein is generally clueful and does good work; answers to Doc James' questions give me pause, though
Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - sure, respect hir judgment

Well, the FAC and SG furor is not so great; probably enough so to move me to neutral here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big enough deal to oppose, so support on balance. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - probably
Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - no thanks
Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - might not be the best fit for the arb role, but neutral

Breakdown: 21 candidates for 11 seats, 8 support, 3 probably support, 5 neutral, and 5 oppose. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My votes are in, but I remain open to recasting if anything major develops. Good luck, all. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the proposed close as of when I commented looked fine. I will probably not have a chance to go over this for another day or so; if that link is otherwise agreeable to the parties involved, I would not stand in the way of getting the RfC/U squared away. Thank you for letting me know. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The other side" (dislike that term, but you know what I mean I hope) disagreed vehemently, so it will probably close without a summary in the next couple of days. Thanks for your input. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure If you are a good person to ask, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Rsd_37_nuclear_test.JPG

How should we handle this?