Guanaco

~ 1950 edits, user since March 1. Seems not unreasonable, interested in process (lots of listing at Speedy deletions, Wikipedia:Images for deletion, dealing with user page redirects of vandals pretending to be Jimbo, vandalism reversion, replacing stub notices with the proper mediawiki message, various fixes, other useful tasks. - Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I originally accepted at 03:15, 6 May 2004, but I've just now decided to move this nomination thing here myself. It was originally commented out on my talk page by Fennec when he asked me whether I would accept a nomination. Guanaco 23:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC) reply

Sorry not to have noticed this earlier... I've been a trifle more busy than I anticipated of late :D - Fennec 14:35, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC) -- wouldn't hurt if he used the edit summary box just a little more, though :)
2. Dysprosia 00:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC) good work at Speedy deletions, so would be able to take care of things himself... reply
3. Here for too months, and I've seen good work. Meelar 21:31, 9 May 2004 (UTC) reply
4. Good contributor and I am not sure 3000 edits is a fair or often applied metric for adminship. GrazingshipIV 21:36, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
5. Masses of vandalism control, I thoroughly approve and support Guanaco's nomination. -- Stormie 10:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
6. Angela . 14:52, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
7. Support - but recommend Guanaco follows the recommendation to provide edit summaries. - Tεx τ urε 18:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. -- "DICK" CHENEY 19:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC) reply
9. Seems to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, at least. anthony (see warning)
10. Maximus Rex 04:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC) reply
11. What I've seen from him is good. Helpful in watching recent changes. Isomorphic 04:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC) reply
12. Michael Snow 20:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC) reply
13. Meelar 15:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC) reply
14. UtherSRG 15:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC) reply
15. MykReeve 21:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC) reply
16. Jim Regan 15:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC) reply
17. Absolutely. Good work with VfD.-- Beelzebubs 17:04, 15 May 2004 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not here long enough. Not enough edits. Kingturtle 20:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC) reply
2. Too new. -- Wik 20:32, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
3. 172 02:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC) reply

Neutral:

1. Danny 02:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC) reply

Comment: