Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcginnly (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 3 December 2007 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Endlessdan

Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed. EndlessDan 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Moral Support, for actually wanting to do this. This fellow candidate appriciates your enthusiasm. Wizardman 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —trey(wiki) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It was very bold of you to do this, and for that, you get my support. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nice answers to questions. Tim Q. Wells 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Quite sincerely, what the arbcom needs. Breath of fresh air. Martinp23 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. For actually wanting the hellish job that is arbcom (and not being an ego mad nutjob like some who've wanted it) ... you've got my vote.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
  8. I feel like shaking the tables of ArbCom and electing someone more chill than I could ever wish to be. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, makes a mockery of these elections. —Random832 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral support – Makes these elections less dull. —Animum § 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Even if you don't get elected, feel free to apply some straight stone cold chillin to editing disputes. GracenotesT § 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support conditionally. Extended comments moved to talk page. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Makes a balance for the serious side and a (nonexistent) funny side. PrestonH 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral Support sh¤y 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Docg 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. krimpet⟲ 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I did not expect to support. Húsönd 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. *votes for straight stone cold chillin* Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. :) Snowball support for a guaranteed fail, thanks for the stone cold answers to your questions DUDE. --Cactus.man ✍ 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strangely more with it than many others. Why the hell not? --Bdj 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. He'd only be one stone cold voice out of 15. It'd be nice to laugh at ArbCom every now and then instead of always holding my head and crying; and an outsider's perspective would be valuable. --JayHenry 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. You appear to be more sensible than some of the other candidates running in this election. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Moral support. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:21, December 3, 2007
  28. Strong support. Seems very reasonable. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. - Nice enthusiasm. ScarianTalk 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ragesoss 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Chaz Beckett 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, makes a mockery of this elections This is a Secret account 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely not. Rjd0060 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. futurebird 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Hell no. Nick 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Good God, no. Qst 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Stardust8212 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Snowolf How can I help? 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Captain panda 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I thought this was a joke at first. Absolutely not. --Coredesat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SQLQuery me! 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Alexfusco5 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Cryptic 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Zocky | picture popups 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rebecca 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Icestorm815 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Do not give up on you quest. I just do not think you are ready.[reply]
  30. Nor will he ever be. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. GlassCobra 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. KTC 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. — madman bum and angel 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose -Dureo 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. —Mira 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I appreciate the fresh approach but I don't think you would make a good arbitrator. James086Talk | Email 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --MONGO 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. - Crockspot 07:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose — does not seems serious. --Jack Merridew 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. If you think your nomination was very funny, you're awfully wrong. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. DrKiernan 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Who are you? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm all for straight stone cold chillin, but no. Shem(talk) 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Stone cold no. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Endlessdan&oldid=175451159"