Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NonvocalScream

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.

NonvocalScream

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)

Ended: Withdrew

I'm familiar with the deletion process, the blocking policy, and the way protection is done. I won't act in ways outside policy as an administrator. I'll use the tools to evaluate entries the the QD list and on the VIP list as per the policies. I won't act in ways that are inappropriate for a administrator on this site, that is, being impolite or using the tools in content disputes. I don't have three months on the wiki, I have shown that I can be trusted. For your consideration. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Strong support Per nom. Turbo Golf 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine, hardworking candidate. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm sorry. I must weak oppose. I require a nom to meet/exceed WP:CFA before I can support. We just had the discussion of you becoming an admin the other day and I advised you not too. You are a great editor and unless you turn into Grawp I will support in a few months. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the 3 months of active editing is preferred. It's on CfA and it's my personal requirement. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly oppose - Sorry, I don't quite think you're ready to be an admin yet. Try in a month or so and I'll support. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, i just don't think that you're quite there yet. Give it a month or so and i'll support. Thanks, B G^7even 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Much too soon. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too soon pretty much sums it up for me. While I have no hard set in stone rule for how long, 3 months is pretty standard. -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - You still have much to learn and you've only been active since last month. No where near ready.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t c r} 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I thought this would wait until I transcluded it. I was not ready for this to go live. ~~Could it please be closed?~~ I'm sorry. I know it was transcluded with the best intentions. Best! NonvocalScream (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can run... I don't think any harm will come of it. If any of the opposes have any questions, please ask me. I want to assuage any fears if there are any. This is also, after all, the community chance to get to know me, see if they would like to to operate with the tools, if they have not already. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec times 2) I'm so sorry! I thought you were ready and forgot. I'm sorry! ѕwirlвoy ₪ 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem. I don't object to early closure if this shows it is going certain way. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw

Thank you all who commented. I see from the above comments that more time is required. Again, thank you for your time on this. I will wait. Best! NonvocalScream (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.