Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Delegate election

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Scorpion0422 is retiring as an FLC director and Sephiroth BCR has been absent since June, The Rambling Man has moved up to a full-time FLC director along with Matthewedwards. That leaves iMatthew as the only FLRC delegate. Considering that FLC/FLRC is known to go through times in which all of the directors/delegates are absent for extended periods (As of late, Matthewedwards has been having internet problems, and TRM will be going on a trip for two weeks in November), it was felt that a second FLRC delegate is needed. The electee will close FLRCs along with iMatthew, and will be able to close FLCs should both The Rambling Man and Matthewedwards be absent. Voting was held from Tuesday, 0:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) through Saturday, 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC).

Candidates

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dabomb87

[edit]
  1. Why do you believe you'd make a good FLRC delegate?
    A: I've been arguably one of the most active users at featured lists processes for a year now, and understand the standards to which we uphold articles. Having observed many directors/delegates make closures, I believe I can judge when to make the right call on a closure, whether it be a keep, delist or keeping a nomination open.
  2. Do you know the procedure on closing FLRC candidates?
    A: Yes. I have made several non-controversial closures at FLC and know the steps well. EDIT: I had forgotten that the closing procedure for FLRC is not the same as that of FLC, so I'll quickly go through them. Lists that are demoted are removed from WP:FLRC and their FLRC nomination page is transcluded under the "Delisted" header for the log of the appropriate month. Then, Template:Featured list log must be updated, and the list is removed from WP:FL and added to WP:FFL; the counts are changed correspondingly. For lists that are not demoted, repeat the same steps, but transclude the FLRC nomination page to the "Kept" section and do not edit WP:FL or WP:FFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
    A: I am online for a 45-minute period at least twice a day, usually more; on weekdays, I am online from (all times UTC) 21:00 to 3:00, and more briefly from 12:30 to 13:00. On weekends, my editing hours vary, but I usually am around sometime from 17:00 to 4:00. I will be traveling for three weeks in December 2009 (and Internet access unknown).
    Are you going somewhere exciting? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    India (Mumbai, mainly). The only way I might have Internet access is through cybercafes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated process (FLC, FLRC)?
    A: I've been one of the most profilic reviewers of featured list nominations in the past year—see User:Dabomb87/PRandFACtracker and its archive. I've written three featured lists (see User:Dabomb87/Contributions) and have copy-edited or fixed up many more. I co-wrote the most recent Signpost Dispatch about the featured list process. With regard to FLRC, I haven't been as active, probably because it receives less traffic. Although I have not outright "saved" any list, I have substantially cleaned up some removal candidates, and have kept the process going smoothly.
  5. My main concern: You're an excellent reviewer and you review almost every nomination. Sounds weird, right? Well if the situation happens that TRM and Matty are both away, I guess I'd have to close FLCs because you can't close FLCs that you review. But you would have to stop reviewing FLRCs if you plan to close them, which is clearly why you're running. But I'm not sure I want to see you stop reviewing because you need to close them. What are your thoughts on this? iMatthew talk at 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: I don't imagine I'll be closing too many FLCs except for quick-fails (which I don't do now because they're not completely non-controversial) and withdrawal requests. I'm too busy to review at FLRC these days. Being impartial doesn't necessarily mean that I can't make a single comment at a nomination at all; SandyGeorgia frequently proofreads articles at FAC and leaves notes about things needing clarification on the nomination pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What do you believe the difference/threshold is between a FLRC ending in a delist, a keep or a no consensus? For example, if a FLRC had 3 keep and 3 delist votes, where in both cases the editors have valid points, what would you do? (if you would like a more specific example, you could use the Arsenal F.C. FLRC). -- Scorpion0422 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Generally, an FLRC is closed as a keep when all issues—at least the major, actionable ones—are resolved and editors agree that the list should be kept as an FL. Delisting FLs is usually harder to do in terms of judgement. I almost would never delist one that is actively being worked on. If there was a chance that a user would be able to bring the list up to standard, but needed time, for example, to collect sources, I would allow the FLRC to stay open for up to a month or so; more than that, though, I would probably delist after a month and encourage the editor to improve the list when he/she has the time/resources and bring it back to FLC. FLRCs are usually closed as delist because a) of criterion 3b, in which case there is no way to improve the article if editors agree it fails that criterion; b) there's consensus to delist and no major work has been done on the list (and there is no indication that any will be done soon); or c) consensus shows that the article needs to be reworked and that the article would not be able to be improved in a reasonable amount of time. No consensus FLRCs usually result from disagreements over a conceptual issue, such as criterion 3b, in recent cases, or scope, as in the Arsenal players list. In these situations, it is very important that the closing editor does not inject their own opinion into the closure but only interprets the consensus formed by the reviewers. In hotly contested FLRCs with many editors on both sides, I would first look at the strengths of the arguments made, excluding opinions that are contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g. " delist because it doesn't cite sources from fan sites"), are irrelevant the FL criteria (e.g. "keep I like the colors of the table"), or blatantly go against common sense (e.g. someone !votes to merge a 400 kb list into another full-length article). If both sides were roughly equal in terms of argument strength and !votes, I would close as no consensus, which defaults to keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. When closing an FLRC, do you take into account the comments/!votes of some (regular contributers) more than others? For example, an editor never seen around the FL process comes to an FLRC with "Keep meets the criteria." Mm40 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: If it's a newly registered editor, I would definitely take the "keep"—or a "delist" for that matter—with a grain of salt, especially if the editor had made few or no edits before that (the chances of the editor just happening upon the FLRC and voting keep/delist are not too high). If it's an established user who just hasn't participated in the FL process too much, I wouldn't be too worried, as they probably would have a general idea of what a high-quality article looks like. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As mentioned before, you are a very prolific FLC reviewer. How would this appointment affect your reviewing aspect?陣内Jinnai 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: My closures would be confined to FLRC, where I do not review as much, although I always keep an eye on it. One benefit of my vacation in December would be that I might be able to pop in and close FLCs that I would otherwise have reviewed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Sterling contributor, no reservations.  Skomorokh  00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely, I have no doubt in your judgment, as I've seen you close things before well-enough. As long as it doesn't get in the way of your FLC reviewing, sure! iMatthew talk at 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You are the best canidate, other than myself, in my opinion.--WillC 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, by far. The credentials are in this man.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Definitely. No reservations. NW (Talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Well qualified—Chris! ct 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clearly up to the task. No reservations here. Satisfied with all of the above answers. Drewcifer (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Favorite choice by far. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gary King (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Please yes. Dabomb is absolutely trustworthy, and skilled in this field. Disclosure: He is a wikifriend, although I first met him here at FLC. PS I see no problem in a bit of poking and prodding such as Sandy does at FAC. Just needs to be judicious and brief. Tony (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. While Giants is a strong contender, I think Dabomb is still a bit stronger.陣内Jinnai 05:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. You have been very helpful in your reviews and with your positive suggestions and advice; you are obviously an expert in the FLC system. You have my vote - provided you continue to help me with current and any future FLCs! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. As long as it really won't affect the excellent reviewing that Dabomb does. I always see Dabomb around FLCs/FLRCS fixing technical issues and general housekeeping. Given their extensive knowledge and experience with this area, I think they will make an excellent delegate. Woody (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Theleftorium 14:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. A definite yes. Seeing as this is a position of delegate for FLRC, which I consider to be relatively low traffic, I have no hesitation for voting for this great reviewer to take on the extra responsibility. If he's anywhere near as good a delegate as he is a reviewer, Matty and TRM better watch their backs! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This is a list of Wikipedians who support Dabomb's candidature, which could not reasonably be included as part of another list because of its length and its appropriate stand-alone nature. BencherliteTalk 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. One of the easiest support decisions I've ever made here. Brilliant editor who will do a fantastic job. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. An amazing editor and wish Dabomb all the best. Nevertheless, Giants would also make a very good delegate. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Certainly. Mm40 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I'm not going to any extreme to say that Dabomb87 is by far the best FLC and FLRC reviewer I have ever known. His intelligence, experience, diligence and commitment are without question. I sincerely hope that he continues to contribute to WP:FLC regardless of any position in which he finds himself. His contributions to the lists here have thus far have been invaluable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. JD554 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Per above.--Giants27(c|s) 22:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Truco 503 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Definitly support  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • I can't say enough about Dabomb87 and everything he has done to help the process. As was mentioned above, my only reservation is that he is the lead reviewer at FLC and FLRC, but I'm sure we can work through that. -- Scorpion0422's PC account (Talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabomb for admin anyone? :O Though not trying to put pressure on Dabomb, but he just deserves the tools. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main concern I have is that Dabomb is the lead reviewer like Scorpion said. I feel that he is needed more as a reviewer than a delegate at the current moment. I don't want to seem conceited or anything, but the same thing would have probably happened with me. If I elected to run, I would be needed more as a reviewer as well. At the current moment, I don't have time to review but I could do closures as a delegate. Just something to think about I guess =/--Truco 503 00:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is of course a valid concern. I will probably not do heavy-duty FLC closures for now, but I haven't participated much at FLRC lately, and it wouldn't be a huge loss if I recused from some removal candidates so that I can close them. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008

[edit]
  1. Why do you believe you'd make a good FLRC delegate?
    A: More than anything, FLRC needs a skilled editor who will be there on a regular basis to monitor the proceedings and close FLRCs when necessary. I edit on Wikipedia every day and would always make time for closures. This editor should have a background in reviewing at FLC and FLRC, which shows knowledge of what FL standards are and helps one learn when a consensus has been reached. I'm a regular reviewer at FLC/FLRC and believe that I know by now when a candidate in either process is ready to be closed. I have a great desire to help FLRC and ensure that FLs are the best they can be.
  2. Do you know the procedure on closing FLRC candidates?
    A: To close any FLRC, a candidate's transclusion should be taken off WP:FLRC and placed on the FLRC log. The totals in the template on the log page also need updating. For removals, in addition to the above steps, lists need to be removed from WP:FL and added to WP:FFL, and the totals for both need to be updated. Comments should then be provided at the closure log. GimmeBot handles the remainder of the process.
  3. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually on?
    A: I'm quite active each day. My editing tends to be spread out among several different times per day; the length of time I spend per session depends on what work I'm doing. On weekends, I'm usually avaliable throughout both days, except when I'm sleeping from midnight to 9:30 a.m. EST. Weekdays involve college for me, so I'm not here for as much time. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I am out from 10:30 a.m to 3:00 p.m. Thursdays are the worst for me schedule-wise; I attend college from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. My schedule is similar on Tuesdays, but with one fewer class, leaving a break from 11:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. This is tailor-made for Tuesday FLRC closures.
  4. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated process (FLC, FLRC)?
    A: From August 2008 to May 2009, I worked eight lists up to featured standard. More recently, I assisted Killervogel5 in his successful effort to save List of Minnesota Vikings seasons when it went to FLRC, and did some work on List of Super Bowl champions during its FLRC, which resulted in a keep. My first FLC review—my first review of any kind, in fact—was in April 2008, when I commented at the FLC for List of Masters Tournament champions. I did little further FLC reviewing for about a year, preferring to focus on FAC reviewing. In late March 2009, I became a regular at FLC/FLRC upon seeing concerns that the featured list process had too few reviewers. I've been an active featured list reviewer ever since.
  5. What do you believe the difference/threshold is between a FLRC ending in a delist, a keep or a no consensus? For example, if a FLRC had 3 keep and 3 delist votes, where in both cases the editors have valid points, what would you do? (if you would like a more specific example, you could use the Arsenal F.C. FLRC). -- Scorpion0422 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Consensus at FLRC is difficult to read at times, since we don't have many regular reviewers. To me, the most important factor in determining whether the FL community believes a list should be kept or delisted is whether critical comments have been addressed or not. For instance, if a list has only one keep 'vote', I would still retain it if reviewers' issues have been addressed and there are no unaddressed removes. Delisting should occur when no work has been done to resolve concerns, and none is forthcoming. To provide one unique example, this FLRC had no comments after the nomination, but was removed because no effort was made to address the nominator's serious issues; I would have delisted it as well. FLRCs rarely end without a consensus; typically when they do so, there is a fundamental argument between the keeps and removes. When confronted with a situation like the hypothetical one above, I would carefully read the entire FLRC to assess the opinions offered by both sides and how strong they are. Provided the sides' points are truly evenly balanced, that would be cause for a no consensus close. The Arsenal players list linked above is a great example of an FLRC with a deep divide. Both sides presented numerous good arguments as to what the scope of the list should be, and from that perspective, the list is in no consensus territory. With that said, instead of closing the FLRC at that time, I personally would have waited and left a comment suggesting that the unreliable source mentioned at the bottom be replaced. That was a strong argument for delisting that was never addressed.
  6. When closing an FLRC, do you take into account the comments/!votes of some (regular contributers) more than others? For example, an editor never seen around the FL process comes to an FLRC with "Keep meets the criteria." Mm40 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: In the scenario provided, I would discount the 'vote' if it came from a new user without experience in other content processes. There's a high probability that such a vote from a Wikipedia newcomer is a drive-by. On the other hand, an FAC regular would bring experience in knowing how to review articles with criteria in mind, so I'd be more inclined to give their opinion weight. In this situation, it's worth checking for potential biases as well. That is one possible explanation for a straight 'vote' like the one above.
  7. As you have mentioned, you became a reviewer for the FLC/FLRC because of the lack of reviewers. If you become a one, do you think this will put the number of lists, especially FLCs, at risk of not having enough reviewers to comment?陣内Jinnai 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A: First off, I haven't attempted to review everything that comes along at FLC and FLRC. As I type this, I count nine reviews at FLC out of 41 nominations, and no FLRC reviews out of five noms (though there are lists in both that I plan on reviewing in the coming days). Sports-related lists are the ones I actively become involved in, and that category has numerous talented reviewers. So no, I don't think losing myself as a reviewer would sink the FL process in any way. In fact, FLC won't be losing me. I still plan on offering reviews there, since there are two directors avaliable for closes in most cases, along with IMatthew as a delegate. If I happen to be the only one avaliable at a certain point, I figure that someone will tell me beforehand so I can be prepared. FLRC is obviously different, because I'd be directly involved there, meaning no full reviews for anything I might close. Even here, I would probably offer some limited comments in certain cases, especially if there are obvious problems with a candidate that others didn't pick up on.

Support

[edit]
  1. I've known you to have excellent judgment and always act as a helpful reviewer and nominator. All answers seem fine, so.. yes. :) iMatthew talk at 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, I think you'll do good work. NW (Talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think you will be a good FLRC delegate—Chris! ct 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, though I still believe you are a great contender! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If I am not selected, I believe Giants is well-qualified and fully deserving. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Either Giants or Dabomb will do a perfectly fine job. Mm40 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely, very thorough in reviews.--Giants27(c|s) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Truco 503 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Wrestlinglover

[edit]
  1. Why do you believe you'd make a good FLRC delegate?
    A: To be honest I don't know why. I'm nominating myself to take more responsibility around here, even though I know I'm not going to win. I've nominated many lists at FLC this past year. I've gotten use to that system, and watched FLRC on and off. I consider myself unbiased, and would do my best to maintain order at FLRC as much as I can. When I put my mind to it, I can become very organized, helpful, [can] handle massive amounts of stress, etc.--WillC 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do you know the procedure on closing FLRC candidates?
    A: Yes, however I have never tried to close one before, but I understand the procedure. I am a quick learner, and I am sure I will get it down pat very quickly.--WillC 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. How active on Wikipedia are you; what days/hours are you usually online?
    A: I live in a small town, with hardly anything to do and I am currently unemployed at the moment. I am very active. Normally around 12+ hours a day I am on the computer, with a wikipedia tab usually open.--WillC 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me for being a bit personal, but might that change any time soon? Mm40 (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything is possible. I'm 18 and still in high school, which I will not graduate from till next May. Looking for a job, but so far been unsuccessful. I'm home schooled as well.--WillC 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What experience do you have with Featured lists and its associated process (FLC, FLRC)?
    A: I've gotten 10 featured lists so far, with a few more lists lined up to be nominated once the backlog is cleared out and I review a few lists to pull my weight around. I've reviewed multiple FLCs, and at the moment I can only remember of one FLRC I have reviewed, that being Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Heavyweight Championship/archive1.--WillC 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. When closing an FLRC, do you take into account the comments/!votes of some (regular contributers) more than others? For example, an editor never seen around the FL process comes to an FLRC with "Keep meets the criteria." Mm40 (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would pay more attention to veteran editor's comments more than the newbie, only because the veteran would understand what a Featured List is more than the newbie. But when it came time for me to make a decision, the comments from both would be weighed on an equal playing field to show no bias. Whatever the clear consensus is in that scenario, will be the final one.--WillC 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What do you believe the difference/threshold is between a FLRC ending in a delist, a keep or a no consensus? For example, if a FLRC had 3 keep and 3 delist votes, where in both cases the editors have valid points, what would you do? (if you would like a more specific example, you could use the Arsenal F.C. FLRC). -- Scorpion0422 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Either restart the review,close the FLRC as a keep and encourage a re-nom to the nominator so that a clear consensus could be established, or close as a keep and begin a discussion on the talk page of the selected article to avoid further nominations, headaches, etc. That way to avoid redundancy and have reviewers attend to other pressing nominations that have not got as much feedback.--WillC 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "I know I'm not going to win" - Alright, 1) Why are you so confident you won't succeed? 2) Don't you feel you should take a more enthusiastic approach? 3) Why do you view this discussion as a win/lose scenario? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I feel Dabomb87 is the best candidate for the job; either he or Giants2008, would do best IMO. I have confidence I could win and do a good to great job if I was given that honorable opportunity, but Dabomb87 and Giant have more experience than myself at closing nominations and are more known than myself. I have always viewed elections, in real-life or internet based, to be nothing more than popularity contests to be blunt. Seeing that the discussions I involve myself in are at WT:PW primarily, I have a lesser percent of garnering faith from other more active editors in FLC/FLRC because I am an unknown outside of the lists I have nominated. I am a contradiction at times, in this instance I view this as a "win/lose scenario?", while I also view it as a learning experience and a momentous opportunity to have responsibility on here and take the next step up that proverbial ladder while I can.--WillC 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Although you are less experienced than the other candidates, I still think you deserve a chance to be a FLRC delegate. I don't really interpret the "I'm not going to win" comment as lack of confidence because it is quite obvious that he is extremely unlikely to get elected running against the other strong candidates.—Chris! ct 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Unfortunately, your answers don't convince me you care at all about the position. Your lack of confidence that you'll "win" this is disappointing, and not very convincing at all. I also have concerns about your judgment, which lead me to oppose. Also, while we've had problems in the past, I just wanted to note that this vote has nothing to do with any past anger I might have had towards you. I made my decisions after reading the answers to all of the questions given by you and the other candidates. iMatthew talk at 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, but I must agree with judgment concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per question 6. IMO, the correct thing to do is see if the issues raised by the nominator, and any other reviewers, where addressed. Mm40 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I think Wrestlinglover had the most to gain here. He's an excellent user, but not overly well-known and not as experienced as the others, and a good showing in which he showcased his knowledge and skill could have gained him a lot of respect. Instead, he said that he didn't know why he was doing it, and admitted that he knew he wouldn't win. Confidence is key, and you really should have highlighted your abilities. That way, if a spot comes open in the future, you could have a better chance. -- Scorpion0422's PC account (Talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thank you for those enlightening comments. This seems to be a main issue, "why I am doing this?". Well, considering I am running against Giant and Dabomb, I thought it was a lost cause. No way am I going to be elected over them two fine users. That is why I did not know why I was doing this. I choose to go ahead and nominate myself, and see if a miracle would happen of sorts. Also, to get my name out there that I am looking to get more involved in wikipedia politics of sorts.--WillC 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Delegate_election&oldid=1207831845"