Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth/addendum I
 | Please note that some of these have been modified so that they make more sense in English, some may have lost a small part of literal meaning in the process, but I think I may have made the translation more in the spirit of what they were saying and less of a literal translation. The original is here. — neuro(talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC) |
This is a translation of the german supporters of my old RfA at de-wiki.
- 2: [I support] despite the fact that I don't like funny/cheerful people. :P ("lustiger" means funny and cheerful)
- 12: I haven't seen him a lot, but the impression that I got was positive. Moreover I trust the nominator and I see good reasons to give the candidate the mop. The fact that he was not able to remember his password suggests security in the handling of sensitive data.
- 13: He is friendly. Somewhere above my vote there was a better reason. :-)
- 19: Gut instinct
- 23: I have confidence in the nominator.
- 24: The nominator is not one of my favourites. [So, despite that this user supports the candidate]
- 25: Anyone who does more good than bad should be an admin, and that is the case here! (the namespace he will be active at at is irrelevant)
- 26: Yes
- 29: I got to know him as a pleasant converser.
- 33: Gladly
- 35: I know seth in real life (and before he was on WP), he is absolutely the right for the job. I definitely support. :)
- 36: No doubt
- 38: If he wants to do annoying technical jobs, we should let him do that.
- 40: The fear that he could be a Don Quijote was fortunately not confirmed.
- 42: I know him from the blacklist area only, haven't seen him in ANS. Nevertheless, I have confidence in the candidate, as if spammer/vandals rearm technically, we need technically adept admins for blacklist/CU/IP-vandalism.
- 44: <nostalgia>I am still able to remember our first encounter - I was very new to WP and both of us didn't know how to revoke requests for deletion. In retrospect, I still find it funny.</nostalgia> He has my full confidence.
- 47: There's one sentence on his talk page about deletions at WP that convinces me totally [that he is fit to be an administrator].
- 50: I know that posting the same comment two times in quick succession is not creative, but since I have said it at Hozro's RfA, I have to say it here, too: What? He isn't an admin yet?
- 51: The nominator only recommends people fit for the job.
- 59: I have had good experiences with him.
- 63: Hard-working, friendly and dry you know, what I mean :) --> support
- 68: In anticipation of more confidence (support votes)
- 77: Oppose! Too silly; but seriously: support, he is one of the good guys. :)
- 78: If the opposition mention irrelevant things like not-using upper-case letters, I am unable to find anything to make me oppose. I really wonder about the strange criteria some users apply for RfAs.
I'll ask some users to have a look at this translation. (Feel free to correct it!) -- seth 15:36, 19. Dez. 2008 (CET)