User talk:Trödel/RFA

My RFA Voting Standards
Generally, I only vote on closer RFA's. Using the RFA summary, I watchlist any yellow or red requests, then research those that are yellow. I feel an admin should have:
 * 1) substantive edits (though I don't think a minimum number per month is necessary - we need admins with broader world expereince who may not be able to spend as much time on wikipedia as they would like),
 * 2) sufficient time as a wikipedian to really "get it," and
 * 3) interaction with all aspects of wikipedia, but
 * 4) contributions to the encyclopedia are much more important to me than edits to wikipedia and talk spaces as long as the candidate shows a firm grasp of wikipedia policy.

I am not into records, so those that look like they should pass don't get any vote from me as I don't have enough time to research everyone out, and refuse to vote based on the opinion of others or to set some record. Thus, I generally vote oppose more frequently than support. I feel that we should focus on the actions of the candidate and how they react to the zealousness of others. Trödel 11:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you for voting on my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for your comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Although you voted oppose I appreciate your remarks.

¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) 06:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Terence Ong
NSLE dismissed my vote from this RfA: Could I ask you to reinstate it? - Richardcavell 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)