Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/James Frankcom
Username: James Frankcom
First edit: Sep 28, 2005 14:31:28
Unique articles edited: 830
Average edits per page: 4.45
Total edits (including deleted): 3,690
Deleted edits: 88
Live edits: 3,602
Namespace totals
Article 3228 89.62%
Talk 119 3.30%
User 38 1.05%
User talk 96 2.67%
Wikipedia 17 0.47%
Wikipedia talk 8 0.22%
File 94 2.61%
File talk 1 0.03%
Template 1 0.03%
Graph
Month counts
2005/09 7
2005/10 25
2005/11 167
2005/12 81
2006/01 228
2006/02 50
2006/03 100
2006/04 270
2006/05 49
2006/06 11
2006/07 32
2006/08 18
2006/09 9
2006/10 0
2006/11 52
2006/12 0
2007/01 0
2007/02 7
2007/03 60
2007/04 17
2007/05 8
2007/06 39
2007/07 23
2007/08 5
2007/09 0
2007/10 53
2007/11 32
2007/12 95
2008/01 13
2008/02 29
2008/03 74
2008/04 256
2008/05 34
2008/06 109
2008/07 14
2008/08 24
2008/09 11
2008/10 73
2008/11 115
2008/12 39
2009/01 186
2009/02 20
2009/03 306
2009/04 180
2009/05 40
2009/06 107
2009/07 2
2009/08 11
2009/09 190
2009/10 16
2009/11 294
2009/12 21
Logs
Files uploaded: 136
Top edited articles
Article
* 189 - Kingdom_of_Gwynedd
* 128 - Anwyl_of_Tywyn_Family
* 75 - Surrey
* 59 - Llywelyn_the_Last
* 59 - Principality_of_Wales
* 42 - Powys_Fadog
* 41 - Brut_y_Brenhinedd
* 41 - Crown_jewels
* 40 - Kingdom_of_Powys
* 36 - Wessex
Talk
* 18 - Brut_y_Brenhinedd
* 15 - Ieuan_ab_Owain_Glyndŵr
* 6 - Saddam_Hussein
* 6 - Kingdom_of_Gwynedd
* 6 - Kingdom_of_Powys
* 4 - Large_Hadron_Collider
* 3 - Abkhazia
* 2 - Apu_Mallku
* 2 - Anwyl_of_Tywyn_Family
* 2 - Maelor
User
* 37 - James_Frankcom
* 1 - Drachenfyre
User talk
* 65 - James_Frankcom
* 4 - Enaidmawr
* 3 - Phenylalanine
* 3 - 81.111.119.98
* 3 - Geaugagrrl
* 3 - Admrboltz/Archive_5
* 2 - Brianski
* 2 - Fastily
* 2 - OwenBlacker
* 2 - Rhion
Wikipedia
* 3 - Requests_for_adminship/James_Frankcom
* 2 - Third_opinion
* 2 - Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_October_12
* 2 - WikiProject_King_Arthur
* 2 - WikiProject_Wales
* 1 - WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology
* 1 - WikiProject_Former_countries/Members
* 1 - Welsh_Wikipedians'_notice_board
* 1 - Articles_for_deletion/Rhirid_ab_Owain_Gwynedd
* 1 - Articles_for_deletion/Cynllibiwg
Wikipedia talk
* 7 - WikiProject_Wales
* 1 - Wikiproject_European_History/Sub-Roman_Britain_tas...
File
* 4 - Gwynedd_Cantrefi.jpg
* 3 - Northwales.jpg
* 2 - Gwynedd_1247_Map.jpg
* 2 - Dinas_Emrys_Gorge.jpg
* 2 - Llywelyn.jpg
* 2 - Cherokee_original_claims.PNG
* 1 - Zvonimir.jpg
* 1 - Powys_new1.JPG
* 1 - Table01.jpg
* 1 - Powys3_1190.JPG
File talk
* 1 - Flag_of_Deheubarth.svg
Template
* 1 - Di-no_license/doc
Why is this RFA going ahead? RP459 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is on hold awaiting the candidate to properly complete their nomination. Please see the candidate's talk page where the situation has been explained. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I now understand. RP459 (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Exchange between User:IP69.226.103.13 and TreasuryTag
[edit]- (indented by TreasuryTag as this editor is clearly trying to make a completely unrelated point) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It hardly matters, but I don't agree that TreasuryTag has the right to indent IP69's !vote, which comes out of a heated exchange above. Is this really and truly a WP:POINT violation? I think not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I think it's a textbook case of WP:POINT. IP69 commented "oppose" not because he opposed the candidacy, but to stick two fingers up (justifiably or otherwise) to those he was bickering with above. Classic example of making a point. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote - per the instructions in the big blue box above. So TT was right to indent - not that it matters as 1) this RFA will fail anyway and 2) the closing crat will ignore this comment - well they should. We don't need to get all petty protocol and COI'y over this chaps.No, sorry - a registered account. Ignore me. Pedro : Chat 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)- Well, IP69 has decided that !votes clearly violating POINT are now permitted, so that's an encouraging new Wikipedia trend... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's why we have bureaucrats TT - best dropped IMHO. Pedro : Chat 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not as encouraging as your deciding consensus doesn't matter as the new wikipedia trend. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Talk page of the RFA ? Just a thought. Pedro : Chat 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, IP69 has decided that !votes clearly violating POINT are now permitted, so that's an encouraging new Wikipedia trend... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I think it's a textbook case of WP:POINT. IP69 commented "oppose" not because he opposed the candidacy, but to stick two fingers up (justifiably or otherwise) to those he was bickering with above. Classic example of making a point. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It hardly matters, but I don't agree that TreasuryTag has the right to indent IP69's !vote, which comes out of a heated exchange above. Is this really and truly a WP:POINT violation? I think not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- (indented by TreasuryTag as this editor is clearly trying to make a completely unrelated point) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)