Yes, I know, this page is horribly organized. If you think you can do a better job and would like to try to organize it better, or reword what I ve said to make it sound better, please, by all means, go ahead. If you edit this page in good faith, the worst I ll do is revert it.

I have been a as an admin; I may do other types of work later. Please feel free to comment on or correct me on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Y0u&page= any of my administrator actions], for which I feel that I should be held completely accountable.

I am currently a university sophomore, majoring in Statistics and minoring in Physics and in Economics. Also, I have very mild Asperger s syndrome. I am a Christian who is devout and a believer in the Bible, although I do not agree with any particular Religious denomination other than being Protestant.

As far as Wikipedia, I consider myself a strong inclusionist.

If I vanish for some time, it is probably due to schoolwork.

I am a member of the Welcoming Committee.

See theme sandbox , as I think of it, at

See video game collection at [http://users.ign.com/collection/Someone150objType=1]. I am a serious video gamer and originally, most of my contributions here had to do with .

= Admin voting policy =

First of all, I know that I do not vote in many RFAs that I would support by these guidelines. If I see an RFA that is obviously going to fail or (more often applied) pass, or I don t have the time to verify these, I ll skip it unless I know the user. Basically, I have three criteria that I look for in an admin, and yes, I know it s not much: *Can the user be trusted to use the admin tools in good faith (In other words, not do something like vandalize or unprotect the main page) *Does the user know Wikipedia policy well enough to not misuse admin tools (This does not mean that they have to know every single policy and guideline by heart.) Note that this does NOT cover mistakes that could be made by a non-admin; granting the user adminship would have nothing to do with these mistakes. *Is the user at least reasonably civil (In other words, they don t have to go out of their way to say friendly things at every possible chance, but I d like to see that they don t have a record of violating .)

In borderline cases, the following are my secondary considerations ( extra credit so to speak.) While they aren t really important themselves (and are by no means requirements to get my vote,) they may influence my vote in borderline cases and may influence my degree of support/opposition (strong support, weak support, etc.) *Being exceptionally friendly and helpful. *Being especially knowledgeable about policy. *Experience with RC patrol, , etc. *Senority. Being here for over a year is a good sign. *A high edit count. While I won t hesitate to vote for someone with only a few hundred edits if they fit my primary criteria, thousands certainly don t hurt and along with time spent here, they are a fair indication of general experience summed up in one number. *Article development. Helping put a few articles up to status is great.

= Barnstars =