FANDOM


m
Line 15: Line 15:
   
 
{{oppose}} Well first off, you couldn't even follow all of the directions for putting up this application (okay, the voting template is up now, but there's still stuff you haven't done). Secondly, you don't help that much. Your edits are usually just a couple words and a good percentage of the time you edit incorrectly. Today, I went back through your edits and fixed a bunch of instances where you made content less proper. Also, you don't seem to understand protocol. A few days ago I had to removed the "Flagged for Deletion" tag that you added to a bunch of pastas. Not only that, but a couple had the reason listed as "boring." That's not a reason. I just have a feeling that giving you more responsibility and even the limited ability that rollbackers have would create more work for others. EDITED to add: Looking at your block history, you've had four bans in a little over a month. Two of them are for making unconstructive edits. Another is for a rules violation and "repeated and consistent failure to meet quality standards." If you can't police yourself on quality, why should you be allowed to rollback the work of others? [[User:ImGonnaBeThatGuy|ImGonnaBeThatGuy]] ([[User talk:ImGonnaBeThatGuy|talk]]) 20:24, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
{{oppose}} Well first off, you couldn't even follow all of the directions for putting up this application (okay, the voting template is up now, but there's still stuff you haven't done). Secondly, you don't help that much. Your edits are usually just a couple words and a good percentage of the time you edit incorrectly. Today, I went back through your edits and fixed a bunch of instances where you made content less proper. Also, you don't seem to understand protocol. A few days ago I had to removed the "Flagged for Deletion" tag that you added to a bunch of pastas. Not only that, but a couple had the reason listed as "boring." That's not a reason. I just have a feeling that giving you more responsibility and even the limited ability that rollbackers have would create more work for others. EDITED to add: Looking at your block history, you've had four bans in a little over a month. Two of them are for making unconstructive edits. Another is for a rules violation and "repeated and consistent failure to meet quality standards." If you can't police yourself on quality, why should you be allowed to rollback the work of others? [[User:ImGonnaBeThatGuy|ImGonnaBeThatGuy]] ([[User talk:ImGonnaBeThatGuy|talk]]) 20:24, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
{{Oppose}} Per IGBTG. [[User:Fatal Disease|Do you hear that? That's the grape roaring.]] ([[User talk:Fatal Disease|talk]]) 21:20, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:20, December 5, 2013

Hi, TheOperator here. I am applying for rollback because I have alot of spare time on my hands, and I enjoy cleaning up pages/editing. I do meet the requirements for the position, and would like to put my literary skills to good use by helping out the community.  

  • Must Have Been Active on the Wiki for 2 Months - I have been active for 2 months. October 6th 2013 is the day I joined.

  • Must have 200 Article Edits, or 25 cases where you have undone vandalism - I have 321 edits as of typing this. About 250 of the edits were article edits, and about 50 of them were adding categories/MISC

  • Must know the wiki naming conventions - Jeff the Killer not Jeff The Killer- The Rake not the rake- Eyeless Jack not eyeless Jack- The Slender Man not The SlenderMan.

Thanks everybody for reading bye!


Support Support -
{{Support}}
Neutral Neutral -
{{Neutral}}
Oppose Oppose -
{{Oppose}}

Please sign your replies!


Support Support - Sure. I think this man has the minimal requirements. Maybe a trial period could be done?

--[[File:Firma.png]] (talk) 20:18, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose - Well first off, you couldn't even follow all of the directions for putting up this application (okay, the voting template is up now, but there's still stuff you haven't done). Secondly, you don't help that much. Your edits are usually just a couple words and a good percentage of the time you edit incorrectly. Today, I went back through your edits and fixed a bunch of instances where you made content less proper. Also, you don't seem to understand protocol. A few days ago I had to removed the "Flagged for Deletion" tag that you added to a bunch of pastas. Not only that, but a couple had the reason listed as "boring." That's not a reason. I just have a feeling that giving you more responsibility and even the limited ability that rollbackers have would create more work for others. EDITED to add: Looking at your block history, you've had four bans in a little over a month. Two of them are for making unconstructive edits. Another is for a rules violation and "repeated and consistent failure to meet quality standards." If you can't police yourself on quality, why should you be allowed to rollback the work of others? ImGonnaBeThatGuy (talk) 20:24, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose - Per IGBTG. Do you hear that? That's the grape roaring. (talk) 21:20, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.