|— Wikipedian ♂ —|
real picture of me
|Name in real life||Gorilla Gorilla (Gorilla?)|
|Blood type||Why exactly does this template have a parameter for blood type?|
Hello. I edit here
sometimes often daily way too much according to most sensible people.[who?] I edit chemistry related articles and fight on the battleground the area of American Politics, do some work with Lua and templates, close discussions, and occasionally write an article among many other things. Galobtter's on other sites are going to be me, or at-least I can't find anyone else who uses this username.
If you're thinking of emailing me, just note that my view/policy regarding emails is essentially the same as Sandstein.
|global.css (dark theme)|
|Articles to create|
|Pages in my userspace|
|Stats and logs|
|AfD Stats (Noms)|
|AfC Reviewing History|
|Top New Page Reviewers|
|logs: CSD; PROD|
|Deletion tag log|
|closes: Xfd; RM; RfC|
- Sebastiano Vigna
- Gamble v. United States
- Madison v. Alabama
- Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
- Katharine Cramer Angell
I incredibly have
19! 30 3555!!+ scripts, plus numerous gadgets - it's a wonder pages load. I also have on script of my own, User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper
These are useful I guess to know for AfC reviewing
Showing how uninteresting I am by using generic userboxes
31 hour blocks
So I was wondering why the standard blocking time is 31 hours, and apparently it's because one random guy thought that was a good number—with an excellent rationale of "31 is a prime number, that has appeal TO ME over all the other 29<x<37 numbers"—in 2005. Guess it's really true that things are done in wikipedia because that's the way it has always been done.
From an article created by a random 15 year old indian boy about himself:
"[is a] star grazer, karate player"
Is being able to eat stars an indication of significance? NVM article was deleted under A7.
Idiotic things I've done
Long-standing articles that have discovered themselves to not be notable
- CricketArchive - article created in 2006, deleted almost 12 years later, I was surprised that there was no coverage despite it being used quite a bit in Wikipedia articles (3300 transclusions for and thus links in Template:Cricketarchive) and elsewhere for stats, nominated the article for deletion, continued to wonder how there is no coverage..and it got deleted.
Occasionally I see people saying something along the lines of "It's the best that people are pushed into doing an RfA," That means there's something so horrible about RfAs that they people need pushing into it...
I also see people saying that self noms are bad. But I really don't see their benefit, and unless that lack shows that the nominator doesn't understand RfA, it shouldn't count against the person. If people want to see some admin endorsement or wants to know that someone has taken a look to see if there are problems with the user - well if the candidate is good then there'll already be quite a few admins analyzing and giving their opinions in support.
What we should really be encouraging is that anyone who's has a reasonable long track record to show cluelessness and civility to nominate themselves - it should not require networking, knowing "who's who", or hunting for a nominator nor should it be a preparation for a trial by fire. That's the real problem with RfA - it either delays or discourages people who have a need for the mop. So useful mopping is lost.
People seem far more afraid of hat collecting - which really should be obvious from the editor's editing history if it's true, and obviously false if the person is doing good work - than losing out and discouraging possible admins. A self-nom or a nom that's early does not necessarily mean power-hungriness - all it just shows that the person wants the tools, which is far more likely for useful purposes than for bragging rights.
Age is IMO one of the poorest oppose arguments. People do say that if someone cannot vote, then they shouldn't be admin..but the reason there is a general age requirement of 18 is because people cannot be individually evaluated to see if they are mature enough to vote, while in RfA there is individual evaluation.