Commons:Requests and votes/Videmus Omnia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Videmus Omnia

 Support = 16;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral= 0 - 88.9% There was a lot of good discussion and a fair number of things that the candidate ought to take on board, but in the end consensus seemed pretty clear, we want Videmus to be an admin here. Promoted. (note... if this had been at all iffy I would not have closed, but the consensus was very solid... perhaps I still should have left it for others, comments welcomed) ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Links for Videmus Omnia: Videmus Omnia (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Hi everyone, I'd like you to consider Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) for adminship. For those of you who do not know his work, he is a phenomenally active hunter of free images, who keeps me quite busy on the permissions queue on OTRS with e-mails from people who have released their images freely. His upload logs show his activity and dedication to Wikimedia. He is quite active on COM:DEL and sometimes on AN, and is a trusted user. In his interactions he is polite and measured, and is basically a nice guy :) I believe giving him the tools will be beneficial to us. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the nomination, and I'm willing to do whatever I can to help. Until now, my primary work has been in obtaining images under free license from copyright holders. You can see the photos I've obtained in my gallery, or at this page on the English Wikipedia. I have a fairly good understanding of licenses, and I also wrote this guide to help users in requesting free content for Wikimedia projects. I've organized photos into galleries, and I've also brought a lot of photos to Commons from Flickr and from the English Wikipedia. I'm willing to help out with all the routine admin tasks, but I hope to ultimately help out with the OTRS queue, as the work I've done so far has brought me a lot of enjoyment working with photographers and article subjects. Thanks! Videmus Omnia 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Support as nom - good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per nom. Nick 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Giggy 06:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, this candidate still has my support despite the issues noted below. — Giggy 02:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I know this user from here and elsewhere. Good nom of a good user. Answers given below move me to strong support I guess. - under the circumstances "strong" is probably too much. However with thought and consideration of Ryan's comment I'll confirm my votes as "support" --Herby talk thyme 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this candidate, with fewer edits in the Commons: namespace than another user who only got "Neutral at best" you support? Why are you so inconsistent? 82.19.1.211 08:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does amuse me to "justify" my vote to an IP but I'm a nice guy and in a good mood today. I'll assume that you are referring to my vote for Rlevse. They have less than 1000 edits on Commons. This user has over 1500 edits on Commons. That is part of the equation. However folk are banging on about taking into account experience on other wikis. I'm ambivalent about that often but I do know this user from two other wikis and have seen nothing there that leaves me with any concern about them. Now I've said that I do feel that if you wish to engage with this community it would be good if you created an account or logged in to do so - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm shocked you're amused by it. At any rate, this is a wiki - I do not wish to create an account at this time, and shouldn't have to. 82.19.1.211 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You certainly don't have to. But if you want your views taken into account (counted numerically, anyway) when commenting on admin candidacies, you do. I can see why Herby's amused, and I can see you have a point as well, but I think you expressed it poorly. We appreciate reasoned comment, but please also try to make your comments not attack others views if you can. Just point out the discrepancy without casting aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to say, I'm rather shocked at your ambivalence regarding users from other projects, and how negative you are about taking into account experience on other projects. I seem to recall your RfA on the English Wikipedia which relied mostly on how we could be confident in appointing you an administrator on English Wikipedia primarily because of the trust and experience you have built up here and on Meta. w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herbythyme makes fascinating reading into the double standards of Herbythyme. Sorry for having to say this, but it's double standards, plain and simple. You wanted the bit on English Wikipedia for a specific reason, and because we knew we could trust you and because we knew you were experienced on other projects, we knew you were very unlikely to make any errors likely to cause damage to the project or community, you got the bit. Is it too much to ask that you return this favour and show some support for members of other Wikimedia projects who are, like you, experienced, knowledgeable and trustworthy, rather than restricting your support to people who meet your rather cliquish, elite requirements here on Commons. Nick 13:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Herrick 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Rettetast 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Quadell (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Sorry but unlike those above my interactions with Videmus have been less positive. I was involved in resolving a difficult situation between an admin and a blocked user on en.wikipedia and was undermined in those efforts a number of time by his interventions. He attacked my involvement in multiple venues and despite my asking (actually begging) him to back off and let me resolve the matter [1] - he continued to frustrate efforts at finding a resolution all parties could accept [2]. I expect admins on any project to have a history of assisting those involved in dispute resolution, not of hindering them. I am also uncomfortable that Videmus has not declared that a previous account of his on en.wiki was blocked for abusive sockpuppetry in June. That was more than 6th months ago, and I would have been willing to overlook the incident given a proper explanation, but I think he should have owned up to it rather than hoping the Commons community would be unaware of the incident. WjBscribe 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested to hear the answers to this I must say, maybe others would as well. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to clarify this, despite it being embarrassing...my previous account on en Wikipedia was RJASE1, from Dec 06 - Jun 07. I primarily worked vandalism & spam cleanup, conflict of interest issues, and inappropriate usernames, where I worked with the en Wikipedia admins Ryan Postlethwaite and H, who I considered (and still consider) friends. Last June, I was a dumbass and fell prey to the temptation to play a prank on them, so I created an account that impersonated a particular indef-blocked troll/sockpuppeteer that we had dealt with together for some time, and did some over-the-top vandalism, in the same style as the user I impersonated, to Ryan & H's userpages. I think I made a total of maybe 3 or 4 edits with the account. Ryan checkusered the account and blocked me before I could explain (I guess thinking that maybe there was a larger sock problem), but a checkuser showed I had not created any other accounts and I was unblocked. I sent lengthy e-mail apologies to all concerned (including the user I impersonated). But I felt like such a jackass over the whole thing that I made a fresh start with a new account and tried to redeem myself by working in other areas. I haven't tried particularly hard to hide my identity (I still have the same photo and the same biographical info on my userpage), I've communicated once in a while with Ryan by e-mail (H has apparently left the project),and my new name seems to be an open secret among the people who know me under my old name. I've never been tempted to play any other pranks, believe me.
    • I've never edited at Commons with any other account besides this one.
    • The situation with the IP is more complex, but I don't believe WJBscribe's characterization is fair. Long story short, an anonymous user was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet after only a couple of edits. When the user complained, the person was tag-teamed by two admins working cooperatively and ultimately had their talk page protected, preventing them from complaining further. Apparently e-mail requests for unblock were characterized as "harrassment" of the blocking admin. The person was driven to the point of using proxies to request unblock at the admin noticeboard, which is where I entered the situation, because I saw WJBscribe reverting all of the person's complaints and semi-protecting the noticeboard to prevent anons from complaining there. I don't like to see anons being abused - collectively they make a huge contribution to the project, despite the few bad apples out there. Based on this, I really couldn't see that WJBscribe was trying to resolve the situation, it seemed to me that he was trying to prevent the user from complaining. It wasn't until I intervened to argue on the anon's behalf that their talk page was unlocked, allowing them to present their case. I'm happy, that as a result, the blocking admin reversed their block - and the user has not, to my knowledge, disrupted or damaged the project in any way. I'm not sure why making a civil argument on behalf of another user is considered "attacking...(WJBscribe)..in multiple venues". I actually believe that I helped to resolve that dispute in away that was more fair - the anon user even left a barnstar on my talk page for helping them. The sysop who blocked the anon ended up resigning as a sysop due to the controversy regarding a different inappopriate block based on a bogus sockpuppetry allegation. So I'm sorry to disagree, I see my involvement in that dispute as positive, not a disruption. Videmus Omnia 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In both Will and VO's defense, this was overall a poorly handled situation, and pretty much no-one behaved themselves in an exemplary fashion. It really rumbled the en community and I feel we've all learned a lot from it, perhaps even about ourselves and how we handle these incidents. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've given this some thought & not made my mind up so far but felt I would share my views. Disagreeing with someone over a block on en wp may be regrettable but frankly seems par for the course there - I sincerely hope that Commons never gets the way en wp is over some stuff or I for one will be absent. I'd hope here that you and any others concerned would find a way through the issue so, while I understand WJBscribe's concern I'm not sure that it worries me that much.
However the puppet aspect does bother me. I reckon that most people who edit here will have done something in their life that they would not be proud of - I certainly have though fortunately nothing very embarrassing on wiki. However when seeking positions of trust I feel we need to be open with those we expect to trust us. I'll reflect on that before confirming or changing my vote, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be supporting or opposing, I try to not take a position on any noms likely to be controversial so I can close them but I will share that I think full disclosure of the socking incident might have been a good approach, instead of letting it be discovered later. Seems like a prank to me, which is not good, but isn't the end of the world, all in all, if that is all it was. Full disclosure can subject you to difficult questioning (ask me, I know well about that, if you've been following things related to the stewardship elections) but it's the right thing to do. (note, what I just said may in fact preclude me from being the closer under my own standards) ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion this was more than simply disagreeing with a block. It wasn't my block after all and I had expressed my own revervations about it. When I came to try and resolve the problem I had just blocked 12 Tor nodes that were being used to evade the block and had therefore had to semi protect the en.wiki admin noticeboard. The blocking admin was complaining of extreme email harassment. My attempts to solve the matter were met by hostility from the blocking admin who thought I was being unsupportive of the need to take a tough stance on harassment (partly due to a misunderstanding between us later resolved), understable suspicions by the blocked users and a number of heated comment from other uninvolved parties. To then have my every move criticsed by an uninvolved user who I expressly asked to hold off until an agreement had been reached and voice his criticism then made that entire process all the more frought. I simply do not trust someone who acts in that manner to be an administrator and so stand by my oppose. To clarify on the puppet issue, I raised the matter because I found the non-disclosure slightly dishonest but I do not suspect any current abuse of multiple accounts. WjBscribe 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the blocking issue. WJBscribe's proposed solution was to require the anon reveal their identity prior to unblock, which is a violation of the meta privacy policy. I do wish that WJBscribe would refactor the work "attack", above, as I don't feel that simple criticism can be characterized as such. But if WJBscribe were to produce diffs that showed an attack on my part, I'd be happy to explain and/or apologize and refactor my remarks. Videmus Omnia 16:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the assumption of bad faith is pretty clear - I didn't require anything. The first compromise the other parties were willing to agree to involved the IP revealing the account they habitually edited from (not their personal identity) but it was only an opening position. They were not personally identifibale from their IP - indeed had made it clear they were using it while temporarily away from home. When the IP made it clear that wasn't an option they could agree to, a counter-proposal not involving that element was made and ultimately agreed to. All of this despite Videmus' input which (a) yes, made me feel attacked for my attempts in good faith to resolve the matter and (b) were counterproductive to that effort and made it much harder to reach the evenbtual compromise. Bottom line- because of those dealings with you I don't tust you, sorry. WjBscribe 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, this was a straightforward civilly-discussed dispute about a bad block by a since-disgraced sysop. I'm sorry that you took it personally and felt attacked, but I really felt that you were taking the part of the abusive sysops and that nobody was helping the wrongfully-accused anon editor. I hope you've noticed that the IP was unblocked shortly after I became involved, and thereafter contributed positively to the encyclopedia, and caused no disruption. I don't believe the e-mail harassment claims by the blocking admin are credible, based on other behavior by that former admin. I hope you realize that my efforts were also made in good faith; I have no personal animus against you and no reason to distrust you. (I don't think I've had any other interaction with you besides that issue.) I hope I can eventually earn your trust but I'm having a hard time understanding how I lost it due to a single honest disagreement about a bad block. Videmus Omnia 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — I oppose not because of the en.wp issues raised by Will above, but because your failure to mention them. I can't trust you if you can't even give us all of the details. God knows how many other things you've been keeping hidden... --Boricuæddie 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I can understand why you might feel that way. Anyway, since I was a proponent of transparency during the Durova/!! kerfuffle, It's only fair that I be transparent about myself as well. I declared my old account on my en userpage and linked from there to an essay explaining the whole situation. Videmus Omnia 12:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No problems. Mønobi 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Oppose Sorry, the Durova affair aside, I can't support the creating a puppet to play a prank issue and not having disclosed it, especially since it was all fairly recent. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If VO's previous account had been on Commons, I would agree that he should have disclosed it here. But it wasn't. This was a Wikipedia account. Is it a requirement to bring up all accounts you've had on en.Wikipedia? Other languages? Wikisource? Wikia? I ask because the general feeling seems to be that his 3-edit prank was bad judgment, and highly embarrassing, but not a really big deal. VO apparently didn't feel it necessary to say "By the way, I did something embarrassing and dumb on a separate but related Wikiproject, one that I'm not trying to hide, but that for obvious reason I don't like mentioning." Is that a big deal? Please weigh this against all the amazing work he's done for the Commons. Quadell (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now wish I had mentioned it at the beginning; I hope you'll note that I was immediately forthcoming when asked. I was advised by an experienced en admin who knew the story (and it's not anyone who has already commented on this page) to just make a fresh start and press on beyond my idiotic mistake. Maybe that was bad advice, but it's ultimately my responsibility. Anyway, I've asked the en Wikipedia admin who blocked me to comment here, and he said he would, so I'll hold off on any further comments until then. Videmus Omnia 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters which wiki it was on. It was a very poor decision and on a wiki. It is also not the only issue here, which have already been discussed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I freely admit that when I have seen what were, in my opinion, bad sysop decisions, I have questioned them - though I've always done so in a civil manner, and I don't think anyone could show otherwise. I will always do so, whether or not I myself ever become an admin. If anyone ever criticizes something I do, as an editor or sysop, I promise to listen and answer honestly, rather than simply block them or cry "Oh dear, someone questioned my actions, they must be out to get me!". I think constructive criticism is a healthy thing to engage in. Videmus Omnia 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote. VO has convince me by the sincerity of his statements that he has learned from his past. We've all made mistakes (including myself) on and off wiki and asking people learn from them is all we can do. When they've shown they've done so, that past mistake(s) should no longer be held against them. I think we should give VO a chance, so to speak. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that RFAs often become "gotcha" games. If anyone can find a really poor decision a user has made, even if it was on a separate project, then the no votes pour in, regardless of whether it was an isolated event or not, and regardless of how well the user responded afterwards. Quadell (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time when there was a council concerning the promotion of a certain man, the council members were at the point of deciding that promotion was useless because of the fact that the man had previously been involved in a drunken brawl. But someone said, "If we were to cast aside every man who had made a mistake once, useful men could probably not be come by. A man who makes a mistake once will be considerably more prudent and useful because of his repentance. I feet that he should be promoted." Someone else then asked, "Will you guarantee him?" The man replied, "Of course I will." The others asked, "By what will you guarantee him?" And he replied, "I can guarantee him by the fact that he is a man who has erred once. A man who has never once erred is dangerous." This said, the man was promoted.
-- Samurai master Yamamoto Tsunetomo, "Hagakure: The Way of the Samurai"
An excellent quote, Quadell-sensei.
As I said, I see this socking as a prank, not a huge good hand/bad hand thing. My larger concern in that area is with the name change afterwards. It's not against policy but it does raise eyebrows when someone changes names to get away from a previous matter. (but I admit prejudice. I have used my real name for 25+ years, never changed userids, never been blocked on any wiki, never used a sock to make a point or play a prank, etc etc etc, so it's easy to be self righteous! Please take what I say with a grain of salt) Still, if I were voting I don't think I'd oppose over it, unless it gave me reason to believe that VO's judgement was not improved by having went through the incident, and I don't think that's the case. I think he has learnt something from it. That said, I can now see I've participated in this one enough that we clearly are going to need someone else to close it, I can't do so myself. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This user has been very polite and helpful with me regarding requesting free content and procedures for uploading to Commons. I find him to be knowledgable and I trust he will do good work here. Cricket02 13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I've had disagreements with Videmus Omnia in the past, but I have no doubt of his commitment to the project, his high quality image contributions, or his careful application of policy. ˉanetode╦╩ 10:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per everyone, even Yamamoto Tsunetomo. :-) The sockpuppet thing was a poorly chosen joke, at worst ... a drunken brawl :-) ... and Ryan Postlethwaite, who should be the one to care most, seems to be perfectly fine with it in his statement below. The disagreement with WJBScribe was perfectly civil, measured, and reasonable, rather than disruptive. We can't demand all our admins march in lockstep, all we can demand is that they are nice about when they do disagree, and that was how it was. On the plus side, VO's image experience is second to no one, his requests have made an incredible number of images freely licensed, and he is diligent in enforcing copyright, as he has done countless times. He seems to have even become nicer doing it than before, even. He's a good guy, and would be a real asset as an admin on the Commons. --AnonEMouse 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Strong support naturally. I am very surprised to be honest Videmus hasn't been made an admin in the commons months ago. Whatever is said above, Videmus happens to be one of the most dedicated people to finding free content images for wikimedia that I have ever encountered as is a shining example of the kind of person I want coordinating the wiki commons. I'm a little disappointed you found wikipedia intolerable and have decided to move more to the commons like Riana but I;d imagine you'd still be adding new images to articles. Videmus is a clear asset to wikimedia in finding free content and I'd like such a person to become as active in it as possible. My only question is that I thought Videmus was in the U.S. army so wouldn't be at home long enough. Perhaps he is on longer leave than I thought?? Anyway Good luck Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There may have been problems at Wikipedia, but I don't believe that will hinder Videmus from being a great asset to the administrative team here. His advice on obtaining free content has helped me and I'm sure several others acquire originally copyrighted images. Spellcast 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think giving +sysop will only benefit it us a lot; at Wikipedia, I've interacted quite a bit with, and I think he's suitable for this role. Maxim(talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What do you think of the culture here? (yes that's a very open ended question) ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a tough question that required me to do some thinking - I'd never really thought about it before! But I really enjoy the shared mission that users have here to build up a body of knowledge and material free for all to use. I've come to enjoy the Commons more than the other projects because of the greater diversity of people here - you never know who you're going to meet or interact with. Also, the Commons seems to be much less hampered by bureaucratic processes and editors with axes to grind. I should also say that I always enjoy watching the discussions at Commons talk:Licensing; it's fascinating to see the different methods that various countries and groups come up with to handle the issue of intellectual property. I know my answer is a little wide-ranging but I hope it was helpful - thanks for the interesting question. Videmus Omnia 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer. Here's what I was driving at, though, and I wanted to see if you picked up on it by yourself. Do you think you'll fit in here? Your ability to cadge licensed images from famous people is remarkable. But I know there is at least one en user who is convinced you're "out to get them". Whatever the truth of that (I'm not sure I agree at all, and the details are not relevant except inasmuch as they might be a guide to your approach here), it's best to put all that aside, commons is a very different place than anywhere else and we really do try (not always successfully) to be mellow. I admit I'm on a mellow kick :) ... but we have users banned elsewhere who are productive contributors here, users whose RfAs elsewhere went down in flames multiple times who are good admins here, etc. Can you compartmentalise? (I should be asking this of more candidates than just you I guess, how lucky for you I picked on you, eh?) ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may know which en user you're referring to - if so, yes, I've occasionally criticized his actions on his talk page and sometimes elsewhere, for what I felt were incorrect and unnecessarily harsh user blocks, often with no warning or attempts to work with the users in question. The "out to get them" statement would be unfair, I think, and I could easily produce diffs to show good-faith attempts to work with that particular administrator. (For instance, this and this.) The bottom line with that particular situation is that I don't believe the indef-block banhammer should be the only tool that an administrator uses. I remember how initimidating the processes here were to me when I first started, especially when it comes to image uploading and licensing. Barring blatant evidence of bad faith, I think it's much better to coach new users on our processes rather than drive them away, and/or turn them into enemies, with injudicious blocks. Videmus Omnia 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not had much contact with that other en.wiki user, but I do know VO is not the only one who thinks that user is too quick on the block button. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from blocking admin on en - When Videmus Omnia first impersonated a blocked user on wikipedia, and vandalised my page, I had a checkuser run confirming it was his old account, I then blocked him indef because I was unsure whether there a serious sock problem with the account. When it was confirmed that Videmus had only been involved in this one incident, I cut the block down significantly. What I'd like to make clear is that whilst this was an error of judgement, it's something that I can assure you Videmus Omnia has learnt from. Over the block period, I was in regular contact with him, and I can tell you for sure that he was extremely disapointed in his own actions and I am positive that the whole incident was one huge learning curve for him. We all make mistakes in our lives, and this was all that this incident was. I can't comment on his actions on commons, but I've always been extremely impressed on Wikipedia with his image work, and he knows wikipedia's imaging policies better than most. I expect that Videmus would be an asset to the administration team on commons, and I fully support this candidacy. I urge everyone to look past the one regretable incident and look at the great work that this dedicated user has done on commons and other wikimedia projects. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 SupportStrong support naturally. I am very surprised to be honest Videmus hasn't been made an admin in the commons months ago. Whatever is said above, Videmus happens to be one of the most dedicated people to finding free content images for wikimedia that I have ever encountered as is a shining example of the kind of person I want coordinating the wiki commons. I'm a little disappointed you found wikipedia intolerable and have decided to move more to the commons like Riana but I;d imagine you'd still be adding new images to articles. Videmus is a clear asset to wikimedia in finding free content and I'd like such a person to become as active in it as possible. My only question is that I thought Videmus was in the U.S. army so wouldn't be at home long enough. Perhaps he is on longer leave than I thought?? Anyway Good luck Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Mr. Blofeld, your evil genius-ness, you seem to have supported above in the Votes section already. Striking and indenting. Not that it matters, we seem to have a landslide. --AnonEMouse 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can let you vote again for One mEEEElion dollars! Send the money to Herby. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Videmus_Omnia&oldid=33102835"