Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Rowlan: Difference between revisions - 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 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:01, 15 January 2006 view sourceBoothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,606 edits →Oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 08:26, 15 January 2006 view source Comics (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users762 editsm →OpposeNext edit →
Line 84: Line 84:
# '''Oppose'''. Inexperienced. Also doesn't seem to get what ArbCom is for. --] 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) # '''Oppose'''. Inexperienced. Also doesn't seem to get what ArbCom is for. --] 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
#--] | ] 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) #--] | ] 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, and it sounds like the user is campaigning for some type of marketing committee, not an arbitrator. &ndash;] <small>(])</small> 08:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:26, 15 January 2006

Rowlan

I am nominating myself, because, well, I like me. I have been a "wikipedian" for only a short time, but it's been glorious. I think there is a great deal to be done in terms of getting the word out about how great a resource wikipedia can be. I use it everyday to check facts, and to beat people in stupid trivia. I'm sure if I were still in school, that I'd use it for educational research as well. One key issue to me is that of silly censorship. Yes, you may have been here longer than me, but this is an open community of people working for the same goal. Let's keep it this way. So grab a pitch fork and a torch and let's hit the streets together and burn whatever monsters there are that might be hampering the cause and progress of Misplaced Pages!


Rowlan 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. Support. --Kefalonia 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support TestPilot 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Quoting Kafziel, Megalomaniacal lunatics need representation on the ArbCom as much as anyone else. Well put. Avriette 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. I love myself!!! (and yes, I love you too) Rowlan 06:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Rowlan's account was created on 9 November 2005 , and thus he does not have suffrage to vote for himself. --Interiot 07:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. --Masssiveego 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Because I like this guy/gal. Rohirok 02:35, 14 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 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Jaranda 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Sorry, but just too inexperienced. Batmanand 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose experience cares --Angelo 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:34, Jan. 9, 2006
  15. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Bobet 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Too new. 172 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Opppose Too new novacatz 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose --Crunch 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. android79 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose --cj | talk 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\ 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. —Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose  Grue  14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Do not like candidate's attitude towards something as important as nomination for ArbComm membership. Lack of experience is also obvious.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose as per Ezhiki. --kingboyk 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. —Quarl 2006-01-09 21:27Z
  36. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Splash 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. --HK 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Raven4x4x 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. --Viriditas 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. older≠wiser 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose, as Ëzhiki. −−It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Statement indicates candidate utterly unsuitable for arbitration.Fifelfoo 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Lack of experience. --Nick123 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. siafu 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. experience.--JK the unwise 12:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  52. Oppose. --JWSchmidt 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose, inexperienced. — Ian Manka 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose – ABCD✉ 18:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. 'Oppose - inexperienced, not serious. --NorkNork 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. Statement scares me, even if it is tongue-in-cheek. Velvetsmog 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose Bad appeal for votes Dr. B 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Krash 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. maclean25 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose, based on first sentence of statement and lack of experience -- Francs2000 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Too new. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Inexperienced. Also doesn't seem to get what ArbCom is for. --William Pietri 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose Lack of experience, and it sounds like the user is campaigning for some type of marketing committee, not an arbitrator. –Comics (Talk) 08:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)