Edit stats from X!'s Edit Counter at 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
X!'s Edit Counter Username: GiantSnowman User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer First edit: Feb 28, 2006 12:58:22 Unique pages edited: 19,347 Average edits per page: 2.16 Live edits: 39,218 Deleted edits: 2,579 Total edits (including deleted): 41,797 Namespace Totals Article 24148 61.59% Talk 3586 9.15% User 390 0.99% User talk 2168 5.53% Wikipedia 5265 13.43% Wikipedia talk 1749 4.46% File 4 0.01% Template 1110 2.83% Template talk 485 1.24% Category 123 0.31% Category talk 181 0.46% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2006/02 3 2006/03 55 2006/04 1 2006/05 0 2006/06 0 2006/07 0 2006/08 0 2006/09 244 2006/10 423 2006/11 420 2006/12 194 2007/01 153 2007/02 243 2007/03 187 2007/04 345 2007/05 138 2007/06 98 2007/07 107 2007/08 145 2007/09 139 2007/10 170 2007/11 297 2007/12 158 2008/01 173 2008/02 668 2008/03 414 2008/04 653 2008/05 1140 2008/06 883 2008/07 140 2008/08 291 2008/09 556 2008/10 737 2008/11 1072 2008/12 540 2009/01 618 2009/02 995 2009/03 1323 2009/04 873 2009/05 1872 2009/06 1392 2009/07 1489 2009/08 1564 2009/09 2641 2009/10 3506 2009/11 1990 2009/12 737 2010/01 5 2010/02 2 2010/03 1 2010/04 290 2010/05 957 2010/06 511 2010/07 504 2010/08 460 2010/09 817 2010/10 884 2010/11 2171 2010/12 1848 2011/01 972
I'm a bit miffed by the !votes here (if you couldn't tell). I think Smokey Joe nailed it on his support. These are very weak point for opposes and feel a lot like people are trying to make a WP:POINT. RfA is a pretty bad place for that. Hobit ( talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having different criteria for adminship than you does not constitute disruption of the 'pedia. It's not pointy everytime someone makes a point; we are allowed to think here (I think, perhaps there is a guideline against it that I was unaware of, in which case, oops). I can understand the desired to throw a capitalized shortcut link in one's argument though, as that does seem to be
SOP. Can a statement ever really have weight on the 'pedia without a good acronym? --
Danger (
talk)
15:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't mind folks having different criteria, I do wonder if those criteria are objectively reasonable in this case. I'd hope the main criteria is "will be a net benefit" and I'm not seeing his answers to even come close to indicting otherwise given his history... Ah well, reasonable people apparently disagree. Hobit ( talk) 06:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit stats from X!'s Edit Counter at 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
X!'s Edit Counter Username: GiantSnowman User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer First edit: Feb 28, 2006 12:58:22 Unique pages edited: 19,347 Average edits per page: 2.16 Live edits: 39,218 Deleted edits: 2,579 Total edits (including deleted): 41,797 Namespace Totals Article 24148 61.59% Talk 3586 9.15% User 390 0.99% User talk 2168 5.53% Wikipedia 5265 13.43% Wikipedia talk 1749 4.46% File 4 0.01% Template 1110 2.83% Template talk 485 1.24% Category 123 0.31% Category talk 181 0.46% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2006/02 3 2006/03 55 2006/04 1 2006/05 0 2006/06 0 2006/07 0 2006/08 0 2006/09 244 2006/10 423 2006/11 420 2006/12 194 2007/01 153 2007/02 243 2007/03 187 2007/04 345 2007/05 138 2007/06 98 2007/07 107 2007/08 145 2007/09 139 2007/10 170 2007/11 297 2007/12 158 2008/01 173 2008/02 668 2008/03 414 2008/04 653 2008/05 1140 2008/06 883 2008/07 140 2008/08 291 2008/09 556 2008/10 737 2008/11 1072 2008/12 540 2009/01 618 2009/02 995 2009/03 1323 2009/04 873 2009/05 1872 2009/06 1392 2009/07 1489 2009/08 1564 2009/09 2641 2009/10 3506 2009/11 1990 2009/12 737 2010/01 5 2010/02 2 2010/03 1 2010/04 290 2010/05 957 2010/06 511 2010/07 504 2010/08 460 2010/09 817 2010/10 884 2010/11 2171 2010/12 1848 2011/01 972
I'm a bit miffed by the !votes here (if you couldn't tell). I think Smokey Joe nailed it on his support. These are very weak point for opposes and feel a lot like people are trying to make a WP:POINT. RfA is a pretty bad place for that. Hobit ( talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having different criteria for adminship than you does not constitute disruption of the 'pedia. It's not pointy everytime someone makes a point; we are allowed to think here (I think, perhaps there is a guideline against it that I was unaware of, in which case, oops). I can understand the desired to throw a capitalized shortcut link in one's argument though, as that does seem to be
SOP. Can a statement ever really have weight on the 'pedia without a good acronym? --
Danger (
talk)
15:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't mind folks having different criteria, I do wonder if those criteria are objectively reasonable in this case. I'd hope the main criteria is "will be a net benefit" and I'm not seeing his answers to even come close to indicting otherwise given his history... Ah well, reasonable people apparently disagree. Hobit ( talk) 06:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)