Wiki How:Requests for adminship/FloNight

(87/8/0) ended 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FloNight (talk · contribs) – FloNight has been editing since October 2005, and at the point where Interiot's tool stopped counting, she was up to 3,106 edits overall, with 925 to articles, 570 to article talk, 915 to user talk, and 434 to project and project talk, [1] which is an excellent balance. Everywhere I've seen her edit and comment, she shows a lot of good sense, a willingness to seek common ground but not at the expense of the policies, and she cares about good writing and using good sources. She has also been seen at WP:AN/I reporting problems that she'd be able to deal with herself if she had the tools, so it would benefit her and the project if she was given them. I think she'll make an excellent admin and it's my privilege to nominate her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept the nomination. FloNight ^talk 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Joe I 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Absolutely. Beat me to it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, looks good. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Kimchi.sg | talk 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Great user! DarthVader 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support quality articles.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. A good selection. Sarge Baldy 02:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Let this be the first "I thought she already was one" comment as well. VegaDark 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Good user. Willing to tackle some sensitive topics. Redux 03:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support good user, I see no problems -- Tawker 03:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Sensible editor, will use tools well. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Sensible and gracious editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I've worked on a few different things with Flow, and we haven't always seen eye to eye on everything, but she is clearly a competent, civil editor. Wikipedia will benefit greatly from giving her the mop. JoshuaZ 03:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support She seems very tactful and mature. It looks like I'll enjoy her presence, contributions, and anything else about her on WP. --Shultz IV 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. More like this candidate please^TM Support ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Though Richardcavel raised a scary point, I think this user's pretty cool and unlikely to abuse powers. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Looks good --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support balanced editor. _-M ^o P-_ 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, Regardless of the edit count and experience, I'm giving her my suppport because of her creation of articles such as Harvey J. Alter and the research she put in for the Hepatitis C article. I love editors who will take the time to research and create articles because that's what I spend most my time doing and understand how long and laborous it is when compared to reverting vandalism. Great articles FloNight and I hope to see you as an administrator soon. Good luck - Patman2648 05:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: thank you Richardcavell for notifying me of an error hoping she was an editor and not an admin, thanks again. Patman2648 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support - see my struck-out oppose vote. - Richardcavell 05:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per nom, + bonus point for liking biographies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - calm, smart, sensitive, rational - constitutionally, tempermentally, and intellectually a sterling choice for admin. - Nunh-huh 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per nom. Pecher ^Talk 06:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Great contributor, will be a fantastic admin TigerShark 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - looks good. —Whouk (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support edits look fine, no reason to oppose.--MONGO 08:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support (A comment she laft on a page I'm involved with was so insightful, I'd vote for her just for that) •Jim62sch• 09:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Of course. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support with pleasure. Grace Note 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support with no hesitation. AnnH ♫ 11:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support looks fine to me. Homestarmy 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong Support Wonderful editor, absolutely trustworthy. Xoloz 15:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support™ --Rory096_(block) 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: Yes, FloNight --Bhadani 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong support. I'm impressed by the nominee's graceful answers to the questions below, the quality of those of her edits that I've reviewed, and the fact that she has fun as a wikipedian (as evidenced by the case discussed in the first oppose below). A great editor who will be a fine admin. Bucketsofg 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I see no problem here. Interesting user page, suitable Q&A below.--Andeee 16:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Liberatore(T) 17:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Well balanced edit count, and I like her answers to the questions.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - (s)he isn't one? Golly gosh. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, good contributor and satisfactory answers to questions below. --Andy123(talk) 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Ideal admin. material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support I seem to see her name everywhere - a busy productive editor!Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. --Sean Black ^(talk?) 22:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. She does a really great job. ×Meegs 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Productive, high-quality edits, good community interactions. -- MarcoTolo 00:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. The "of course" was already used, but I'll use anyway. Of course. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. All experiences have been positive. Will make good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Of course, excellent candidate.--Dakota ~ 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support, looks good to me, yes. JIP | Talk 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Enthusiastic Support. I didn't see this until now or I would have voted sooner. FloNight does good work, and she does hard work. Working with her is a distinct pleasure. She never loses her cool intelligence when dealing with difficult users and situations, which she is not shy of doing. FloNight is an angel, is what, and God knows she's an ornament to the 'pedia. FloNight is who I wanna be if I ever grow up... Herostratus 06:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. support Merecat 06:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. support--Jusjih 06:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I was lucky enough to be the editor who 'formally' welcomed Flo, and I was surprised at how quickly she delved into Wikipedia. I feel she has the experience and disposition of an editor who has been about for years, and am confident she would make a good admin.--cj | talk 07:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. support Looks good to me. Can't wait for this one to go through. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. support--blue520 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. *drew 09:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support -lethe ^{talk +} 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Often seems to be a calming (or at least, a calm) voice in contentious areas. Alai 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strongest support --DanielCD 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support --Fuzzie (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Moe ε 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Good work. (^'-')^ Covington 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Easy decision, FloNight is serious about "do no harm". Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Piling on at this point, but support. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. I see no reason to oppose. Royboycrashfan 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support, no worries. Deizio 01:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support RfA cliché #1. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Absolutely. FeloniousMonk 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Great job calming things down during the Katelyn Faber debate. Tufflaw 05:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Because I do. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 06:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Good editor. Davewild 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Will make good admin. Tangotango 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Guettarda 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Definitely. •Jim62sch• 12:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. We need more admins with her talent for mediation. Feezo (Talk) 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, appears sane. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - everything looks okay here. Essexmutant 06:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Oppose . I know this is going to snowball for support, but given Mccready's diffs and, to a lesser extent, Kotepho's, I'm rather suspicious of this admin. These aren't dredged up from history by someone with a long grudge, either; they're fairly recent examples of questionable or outright bad behavior. With the suspicions about admin abuse lately, we need to ensure that our admins are as blameless as possible. Captainktainer 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Based on the explanation on the talk page and looking at the user's history better, I'm removing my opposition. Haven't decided yet whether to move to Support yet, so I'm just going to leave this struck out for now. Captainktainer * Talk 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Having now thought about it, I'm convinced that FloNight deserves support. Captainktainer * Talk 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - I don't want to sound like the grumpy old man here, but for the record I think that she is overprotective of 'her' articles and assumes vandalism too easily. The latter vandalism warning she incorrectly titled 'welcome' and did not sign. I'd be happy to hear a reply from the candidate and reconsider my 'vote'. - Richardcavell 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richardcavell, that edit about The Da Vinci Game was a joke. DanielCD is a Wikipedia pal of mine. I started the article for a strange reason. An inexperienced editor accidently filed a Request for arbitration against Mindspillage because she deleted the article 6 months earlier. She was the admin that closed the Afd. The editor was wanting permission to recreate the article. Since Mindspillage is on the arbitration committee it was amusing to see her as a party in the case. To help fix the situation, I started the article and tried my best to make it notable. Not an easy task! DanielCD was helping me and we got a bit silly while working on it. I apologise for being too silly while editing.

Regarding the test template to User talk:Cheese nibble, the next edit one minute later I fixed my mistake. Put test in the edit summary and signed it. [2] I can't remember the exact situation. It appears that the editor changed the school motto to this:

The school motto is cheeky cheeky from the popular cheeky girls song. for the third time that day. They stopped after my test warning, at least with that user name : ). I hope this explains these edits. If not I will be happy to answer more questions. FloNight ^talk 05:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the explanations of FloNight. I expected that each of the issues might have the explanations that FloNight has given above, but of course I needed to raise the points and get those explanations before being satisfied. Changed to support. - Richardcavell 05:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this. I appreciate ppl who can lighten the atmosphere with a little humor, and it was so obvious that it's not with any further comment on my part. I think that was around April Fools time anyway. And I know this comment is after the fact, so I scold myself in advance. --DanielCD 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Last thing we need around here is yet another vandal bashing admin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)

   Comment has about 20 edits, started yesterday, created Timothean religion which was a bogus religion which User:Naconkantari deleted, then pestered Naconkantari. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply Timothean Religion is a real religion. The man published a book available on Amazon.com. I'm sorry if it doesn't pass your standards but I'm fairly certain this man is serious and has at least a few followers. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)

   If having a book published on Amazon makes something a real religion, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real religion. I don't think you quite have your criteria correct. --Cyde Weys 19:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect, I don't think this is the place for a deletion debate. What does this have to do with her functioning as an admin? ...has about 20 edits... - Are you saying she only has 20 edits?? --DanielCD 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   As far as I can see, those comments relate to the opposer (Profundity06), not to the nominee. Alai 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, I see that now. --DanielCD 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, not enough main space edits by my standards, sorry abakharev 03:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose She is a decent editor, but has shown a lack of understanding of policy and does not have good user interaction (most user_talk edits are welcomes, templates, or to DanielCD).
   • She has expressed that pages should be protected at a particular version [3][4][5], even though she clearly read the policy. [6]
   • She has a habit of viewing conflict through an us vs. them mentality, assuming anyone against her is a POV pusher, and framing debates via extremes. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
   • She assumes that the community is behind her. [13] [14] [15]
   • Does not strive for NPOV, and is even against it. [16] [17]
   • Has been uncivil and shows a lack of AGF along with too much BITE. [18] [19] [20] (She did later strike this one out, to be fair.[21])
   • Kotepho 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment I'd like to note that the Pedophilia userbox and the Lolicon dispute were two of the most acrimonious disputes in recent memory, and compared to other things that were flying around then (including possible incivility by Jimbo), it doesn't make sense to hold this against her. As for your difs that you claim show a lack of desire to follow WP:NPOV, I'm afraid I don't quite see why you think they show that and would be interested in hearing further explanation. JoshuaZ 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   "There are safeguards in place to keep articles from becoming pro-pedophile (or even neutral about pedophilia)." cf. "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." How do these two statements not conflict with each other? If it was just Lolicon I would let it go, but it seems to be a recurrent pattern. Kotepho 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Taking statements like this out of histories can be tricky, and can often lead to misinterpretations. --DanielCD 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Kotepho, the NPOV policy says we should represent majority and significant-minority views, not tiny-minority ones. Pro-pedophilia views are without question tiny-minority ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I will assume that your view is correct. Even given that we do not need write an article that is biased. Does Slavery need to be biased against it? A pro-slavery view is certainly a significant minority.

   I don't really want to get into specifics, as I don't know how she defines pedophilia and what she meant specifically. I would say that pro-pedophilia is a tiny minority in most current societies. Is anti-pedophilia the majority in most current societies? Sure. Is there a significant portion of people that fit in neither of these aforementioned divisions? Yes. One must also consider differing cultures and time periods, what you may consider pedophilia is perfectly normal in other cultures.

   As such, any blanket statement that articles cannot be neutral about pedophilia is certainly suspect. I would urge you to read our NPOV policy again if you do not think so. Did she mean it differently? I do not know. She did not clarify when questioned at the time and has yet to respond here. Kotepho 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose I think there are too many admins and I would like to see a code of conduct in place and enforced before new ones are created. Some admins are rude, revert legitimate comments by other editors, block pages they have edited and violate WP policies. My specific reasons for opposing include
   • She deleted comments and when asked on her talk page why, did not respond. [22]
   • She deleted legitimate comments from her talkpage without explanation[23]
   • Deleted more comments from her talkpage.[24]Mccready 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose for now I don't have anything against her and have not had too much interaction with her, but looking through her contributions I feel that she's not been too careful in her changes and perhaps has not quite done enough (recent) additions to the site...instead focusing on vandals. While that needs to be done, I'm not sure another anti-vandal is going to do more than participate in a race to be the first to warn/block/ban a user. I would be willing to revisit this in future or reconsider if people can provide better evidence than my (admittedly not complete) look through her prodigious history. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Kickstart, there's some information about Flo's contributions at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/FloNight#Recent significant contributions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yep, I answered there that that info should be copied here, but she's not followed up on that. I'm maintaining my opposition until she does, at least. I'm finding it interesting that the support she's gained really seems to provide minimal citations yet the opposition has worked to bring up as many details as necessary...and she doesn't appear to be full answering those questions. There are still instances of unanswered questions on her talk page, and that doesn't bode well for her being a responsible admin, IMO. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure what difference it makes whether it's on this page or the talk page, but I've copied it below anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. It's a basic prerequisite for me that an admin candidate has moved on from the newbie habit of blanking user talk to archiving. I'm sorry to say that something doesn't "smell" quite right to me here either in terms of attitude. --kingboyk 07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Kingboy, Flo has explained why she deleted these messages from her talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/FloNight#Reply_to_Mccready. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose - per Kotepho. --Knucmo2 12:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose: doesn't seem ready yet. Thumbelina 17:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

• See FloNight's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Interiot's tool is still working. It just has a humungous replication lag at the time. Redux 03:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Generally, I plan to use the sysop tools to carry out my regular Wikipedia activities more efficiently and and more completely. Eventually, I plan on helping out with some of the more complex and time consuming chores. There is often a backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because the copyright issues are complex and often require in depth follow up. The same is true with Wikipedia:Requests for investigation and Wikipedia:Long term abuse. My schedule is very flexible so I should be able to help out in areas that require long term follow up. FloNight ^talk 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My all time favorite edit is this one. [25] I added the correct information about who discovered Hepatitis C and the correct time line. Because of discrepancies between many reliable sources, it took me a week of reviewing sources to figure it out. Recently, I wrote a biography about Harvey J. Alter, one of the medical researchers that discovered Hepatitis C. I enjoy writing biographies about noteworthy people like Alter that are not ultra famous. FloNight ^talk 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I regularly edit articles about controversial topics, so I'm involved in conflicts over content pretty often. Usually guiding the focus back to the disputed content and applicable Wikipedia policies and away from remarks about an individual editor keeps the conflict from escalating into a major disruption and high stress incident. When I was a fairly new editor, I participated in a Rfc and the WebEx arbcom case that followed. It ended with a user being banned from several articles. Overall, I feel I handled the conflict in the the case well. The best stress buster for me is thinking of the wonderful Wikipedian's that I've met while working on the best volunteer project around. -FloNight ^talk 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. from KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Do you plan to start archiving, rather than blanking, your talk page, and why or why not?[reply]

KillerChihuahua, thanks for the question so I can clear this up. I was the target of a banned user's sock puppets. I had to remove his posts from my talk page and articles. While I was removing the banned user's post from my talk page, I decided to archive my talk page for the 2nd time. I had already archived it once before. I planned to sort through and leave a few posts out of order on the talk page. I had just begun doing it when I was distracted. I stopped and never finished. That left my talk page with the first archive and some other posts not visible. I'm glad that it was pointed out today so I could fix it. : ) I hope this answers your question. FloNight ^talk 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to questions (copied from the talk page):

Reply to MccreadyHello Mccready : ) Thank you for your interest in my RFA. I'm sorry that you have concerns about admins in general and me in particular. I hope you will look at my reply and reconsider your opposition to my RFA.

• If you look at these diff. you will see that I did reply to this editor on their talk page twice. [26] [27] and then I put a message on the talk page for the person closing the Mfd. I asked them to double check the history to make sure all comments were noted. [28]
• Regarding the comments left by the next editor, I didn't delete them. I made them not visiable on my talk page. This editor was having a difficult time on Wikipedia. This comment being visible wasn't helpful to the situation. The editor didn't mind me removing it. He in fact remove similar comments off his own talk page. I ask you to please trust me that this was a positive move and helped the situation. As you can see we continued to work together to lower his stress level. [29] [30][31]
• The last comment I removed was from a banned user that was wikistalking me. This is policy. This particular banned user is causing serious problems for Wikipedia and some editors. I believe it is being addressed by Jimbo.

I hope this answers your concerns. If not I will be happy to answer more questions. --FloNight ^talk 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be on the main page under his comment, so that all other voters can take this into account? --Kickstart70-T-C 18:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to tell you the truth. That's why I put it here. I could leave a comment pointing people back here. Or I could move it. --FloNight ^talk 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either is probably fine...I'd likely just copy it. Cheers, Kickstart70-T-C 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent significant contributionsBrenda Cowan a new article, Harvey J. Alter new article.

Added history and other content to University of the Cumberlands, a Kentucky college currently in the national media.

Ongoing rewrites to these articles after I saw message left on AN/I. David McSweeney rewriting after message left on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92#David McSweeney. Rewriting Chad "Corntassel" Smith because it was part of a dispute between two groups of editors and their sock puppets. Patricia Cornwell has persistent vandal.

Rewrote the introduction and another section of William A. Dembski. Added text about education and career to Lauren Slater. Slowly expanding National Religious Broadcasters.

Kentucky stubs started. Natural Bridge State Park (Kentucky), Ashland Community and Technical College stub, Big Sandy Community and Technical College stub.

Also of note. My very first article CIA leak grand jury investigation is featured on the on the Current events page under Ongoing.

I participate in talk pages discussions on many articles related to pedophilia. If the articles are stable, I edit them. I have a 1RR, (except for vandalism, defamation, or copyright violations which of course I remove more than once as needed) so pointless for me to edit unstable articles. Example of ongoing discussion talk:Pedophile activism Many of these articles are targets for vandals so I watchlist them all. FloNight ^talk 23:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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.