Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Magicalsaumy - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by -Ril- (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 15 January 2006 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:49, 15 January 2006 by -Ril- (talk | contribs) (→Oppose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Magicalsaumy

Hallo all! I have browsed, admired and edited articles on Misplaced Pages for more than six months. It is a wonderful site as a comprehensive encyclopaedia, but the arbitration committee needs to handle the disputes more effectively and impartially (including the fact that hoax claims must not be highly entertained). Hence I feel that the members of the arbitration committee need to have a sufficiently large knowledge base, so that they could distinguish points which conform to the neutral point of view from those that are naïvish and that have been added out of emotional ecstacy. As far as knowledge with relevance to India, Hinduism, Indian philosophy, Hindi, linguistics, phonetics, engineering, Indian Institues of Technology are concerned, I feel that I am a good candidate for this post. I also propose a strict action against vandalism. I request you all to consider me for this opportunity.

As for myself, I am Mr. Saumya Ranjan (appearing in wikipedia under the name of Cygnus_hansa), a fourth year Chemical Engineering student from the prestigious insitute IIT Bombay. I have been editing various articles, especially those related to Hinduism, for a long time to bring them in conformity to the neutral point of view and yet with an Indian perspective.

Questions

Support

  1. Support freestylefrappe 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Deepak|वार्ता 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. --ΜιĿːtalk 13:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mo0 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Cryptic (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Jaranda 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Inexperience, and I also have policy concerns. Batmanand 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose --Angelo 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. - Paul August ☎ 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose 172 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Bobet 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose --Crunch 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. android79 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Too new.— Catherine\ 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose--cj | talk 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose .  Grue  13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose I would like to vote for some people outside the USA and Europe, but I don't feel you have enough experience nor has your competence been demonstrated. Maybe next time. --kingboyk 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. "Large knowledge base" is extremely helpful for arbitration, but so is experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. siafu 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. —Quarl 2006-01-09 20:22Z
  38. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose - vague policy. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Splash 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. A whole six months! Avriette 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. older≠wiser 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Raven4x4x 09:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. Concur with kingboyk. Gamaliel 10:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose, too inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose.....possible case of "emotional ecstacy" --JWSchmidt 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose, doesn't seem to understand the role. Gazpacho 19:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  58. Oppose. Statement focuses on content disputes rather than interpersonal disputes; which is not what the arbcom is (presently) about. Thryduulf 20:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose Experience, statement --EMS | Talk 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose: But not based on lack of experienceDr. B 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. I don't think the candidate fully understands the function of ArbCom. Velvetsmog 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose, too inexperienced. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Inexperience. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose looking for prestiege and University study has great demends on timeGnangarra 14:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)