Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamesontai

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Jamesontai

edit

Final: (19/18/5); ended 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jamesontai (talk · contribs) - I am honored to present to the Wikipedia community Jameson L. Tai, or Jamesontai. Starting in November 2006 and active since October 2007, Jamesontai has been active in WikiProject Universities- and San Francisco Bay Area-related topics and articles, amassing over 5000 edits total across the main, user, and Wikipedia namespaces. Complete with a civil and amicable personality, willingness to accept and learn from mistakes, and a diligent demeanor, I am proud, as a Wikipedia administrator and a fellow Lowell student, to nominate him for adminship, to nominate him for tools that he will use to immensely benefit the encyclopedia. —Kurykh 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept my nomination and would like to thank User:Kurykh for nominating me. I look forward in further contributing to Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy my current editor status and I am very honored to have been nominated as a administrator. Yesterday, during the Miami 2 Meetup, I was just talking about my personal faults that I have encountered on Wikipedia, and the unlikely probability that I would be an administrator, so this comes to me as a surprise. This would serve a very special 21st birthday present that I would have earned if I were to be granted adminship by Jan 30th. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I currently take part in WP:UNI as well as WP:NPP. If I were to be granted adminship, I will work on WP:NPP, Typo fixing, and working on articles focusing on the San Francisco Bay Area, Florida, Space Coast, and other higher education-related articles. I monitor vandalism on articles from the WP:UNI/COTF project that I started about a month and a half ago. I intend on expanding my work into WP:AFD as well as doing my part in fighting vandalism. From working on WP:NPP, I have seen many unremarkable persons, bands, and blatant advertising articles attempted to be posted on WP. I'd like to work on blocking those individuals who repeatedly attempt to post nonsense and harmful materials to Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I must admit that I cannot compare myself to some of the wonderful editors on Wikipedia who many contribute GA articles, especially when I focus on WP:NPP. However, I guess my best contribution would be the establishment of the WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Fortnight. (Please, if you're interested, come join us! We seriously need more help in improving the thousands of university articles.) Even after the COTF switches to the next three articles after the 14 days, I still go back on the previous articles to see if there's more improvement I can work on as well as reverting vandalism, like my edits on Harvard University 1, 2, and 3.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Conflicts...there are many. I have had my handful of conflicts when I first started on Wikipedia. I was "young, ignorant, and naive" I guess, and I uploaded some unsourced information as well as another article that failed WP:ORG that I took part in. I found myself somewhat helpless, as I made sure that the articles were written well (grammatically), but it took me a while to figure out what it takes for an article to be established. Other conflicts have come from edit wars that came up on WP:UNI and I have tried to resolve or attempt to come up with compromises. However, I haven't had the pleasure of getting into serious conflicts as I perform WP:NPP or reverting vandalism yet, in fact they've been quite humorous (and 2. I believe that by understanding both sides of the issue in an edit war is the key to coming up with resolution prevent constructive contributions to Wikipedia. As most conflicts in life, taking a step back, breathe, and reassess the situation thoroughly is the key to conflict resolution.
Optional questions from Pomte
4. Why did you say that the article Montgomery D. Corse among others was original research when a source is given? Is that source really unverifiable?
A: As you cited, I did talk to the author regarding the subject, and I did not get a response back. I came across this page during npp and the author repeatedly cited the book where he obtained the information from in the incorrect format. (And for the record, the AfD result was KEEP (no consensus)) At first, I thought the reference said "Sifakis, Who Was in the Confederacy" instead of "Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy", which lead me to believe that could have been original research. I have have not had a chance to follow up on the AfDs since classes started the following day (Jan 7th) and junior year for an engineering student (is hell) isn't easy. Actually there were several AfDs around that time period that I haven't had a chance to catch up on. Getting back to the original subject, I do apologize for not reading the word "Who" in the incorrectly cited book title and I am glad that there are many wonderful admins who cross-check each others' work. It's a great system. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Please briefly discuss any relationship between WP:CSD#A7 and notability. Do you stand by your statement here with the verb "demonstrate"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomte (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: You are referring to a CSD policy when compared to a comment I wrote about a previously deleted article. The Vianessa Castaños article, if I remember correctly, established no notability whatsoever and to my personal judgment, was considered as an unremarkable person. I wasn't the admin who deleted the article, so I'm assuming that the admin who speedy removed the page probably agreed with me. Regarding my talk page response, I believe I was referring to the fact that the subject was unremarkable and the original contributor did not provide enough reliable sources to prove otherwise, not to nominate an article on notability alone. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thehelpfulone

6.What are your thoughts on administrators open to recall? Would you add yourself, why or why not? The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Like those in power, every single one claims that they serve the people and their actions are for the people. However, accountability can be fulfilled in many ways than a simple recall system. That being said, I have not had the pleasure of encountering an administrator who deserves to have their mop taken away from them (yet). That being said, I support any workable checks and balances system where accountability can be achieved while serving the main objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation. I would add myself, but as I read more and more about this issue, it seems like even if an admin promises to be in the program, the second he/she does something questionable, the admin can simply remove him/herself from the program and, therefore, be free from being accountable. I don't necessarily see a more definitive participation method. Therefore, let's be honest, even if I say on this page right now that I will join (and actually to answer the question, I will), the general community has no control over whether an admin has to follow through when a situation arises which validate a recall. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7.What is the difference between a ban and a block? The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: A block is one way to enforce a ban, but they are not the same. (WP:BLOCK) A block is "a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia" and is to prevent and deter editors from doing (further) harm to Wikipedia and encourage a very speedy understanding of Wikipedia policies and behavior. Blocks may be temporary or permanent. However, (WP:BAN) a ban "a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia" and may also be temporary, a set time interval, or permanent. Basically, the "edit this page" link does not extend to banned users. "Users may be banned as a result of the dispute resolution process." Banning is when a user is repeatedly blocked and after consensus there are no admins in the community who is willing to unblock the user. Blocks are used much more than bans, and blocks are used to enforce an existing ban, as well as any subsequent sock puppet who try to evade.- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NASCAR Fan24

8.You come across the following articles tagged for speedy deletion. Do you delete them? If no, please state the action you would take.
"Elroy Budvis is an auto mechanic from Las Vegas, Nevada" (tagged as A7)
A: Ah... the bio tag. Well, personally, I'd google this person first. WP:CSD A7 implies there is no "indication of importance/significance", which means somehow, somewhere in google I should find at least one page with this name on it. Since the article only mentioned that the person is an auto mechanic, it is safe to assume, that without further mentioning of why this person is important, that CSD A7 would be fulfilled (and confirmed by the google search). I'd establish that Elroy Budvis has no indication of importance or significance as a mechanic in LV. (However, I found tons of articles on this character in Guitar Hero III being a look-alike of Elvis). I'd then delete the article. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was a deliberate reference to GHIII - I couldn't think of a name. NF24(radio me!) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Floccinaucinihilipilification is a band from Round Top, Texas. Among their many awards are 'Band with the most members' (213) and 'Band most likely to sell a platinum record'." (tagged as G1)
A: Unfortunately, there are many "crappy myspace bands", but tagged as CSD:G1 is incorrect, because it should technically be tagged as CSD A7 with {{db-band}}. However, since the article did mention winning awards, which technically implies inherent notability, I'd have to consider whether this band has notability "outside of myspace...so to speak". If the band's article is really just missing source links, during the process of checking notability, I would have stumbled across some really good sources to link back onto the article. If I do find sources, I would remove the tag, add the sources, and notify the user who nominated the article for deletion to check the article out again, and to seek AfD if he/she still feels that this article should be deleted. However, it would not warrant a speedy deletion. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bob Roberts is a member of the city council of Erie, Pennsylvania." (tagged as A7)
A: WP:BLP state that "[in] the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Most likely if the person is notable enough to have many WP:RSs to support the article, CSD A7 would not apply. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article consisting of a link to an organisation's website (tagged as A3)
A: Just a hyperlink and nothing else in the article? That's it? Well, if that's the case, yes, Wikipedia:CSD#A3 would be correct, because there is no content in the article other than an external link and technically the link could be considered as "an attempt to contact the subject of article". However, if there is content in the article and this is just a stub, then CSD A3 would not apply. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is just a link. NF24(radio me!) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia -> Polish Wikipedia (tagged as R3)
A: Actually I don't see what the problem with this one is. Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia is just a tagline for the Polish Wikipedia, so naturally searching on the English Wikipedia with this phrase and have it redirect to the Polish Wikipedia article (which if the user wanted the link to this, could click the available link on that English article). I would not delete this because it this is not an implausible typo or misnomer as stated by CSD R3. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image that is tagged as "For non commercial use only" as well as I3.
A: Question, was the image uploaded before 19 May 2005 and used in articles? If it was not uploaded before that date, then the non-commercial use only license cannot be used. I would check out whether there is a free image that can effectively replace this non-commercial use only image or if the image is within fair-use guidelines. If I cannot, I would notify the contributor that the image cannot have this license and that it will be deleted. Also, even if the image was uploaded before May 19, 2005, if the image is not being used in any articles, it still warrants to be speedy deleted. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image was uploaded after 19th May 2005. NF24(radio me!) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-admin has closed an AfD as "delete" and tagged the article as G6.
A: I would not consider a non-admin closing an AfD with delete to be general housekeeping, which WP:CSD G6 defines as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, performing uncontroversial page moves, or cleaning up redirects. I would contact the non-admin regarding the non-admin close. (I need more information to answer your question in more detail, but no I wouldn't delete this article.) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jamesontai before commenting.

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Nominator support. —Kurykh 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support, very promising user. More experience won't hurt though. Wizardman 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Admin coaching. miranda 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support I believe has some very good edits and does a lot of work with WP:NPP but could use some more experience. I do support though. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 04:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, nothing in the edit history that spooks me or leads me to believe that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Moral Support A very good user, but a premature RFA, unfortunately. · AndonicO Hail! 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I never was a fan of TimeItis or editCountItis. As below, the lack of clear evidence of untrustworthiness has compelled me, well I compelled me to Support. Mercury at 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Premature RfA, but Moral Support per Wizardman et al. BLACKKITE 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, good user, seen him around. Good luck, and happy birthday for when it comes! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Kri77777 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I know him personally and trust his editing. Further, I have seen his contributions and discussions on local articles and must say they certainly add to the Wikipedia goal.[reply]
  11. Support - I have a good feeling about this user, and my intuition is rarely (if ever) wrong. WaltonOne 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Merovingian (T, C) 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Killerofkiller (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Jameson is not scared off by difficult or technical subjects (computer science, engineering, robots). Both his technical knowledge and his fearlessness deserve recognition and support. Obviously that by itself doesn't rate adminship, but comments so far seem to indicate a lot of goodwill both towards him and from him, and his explanation below concerning 5 years of experience seems plausible and even obvious given his output. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support Im pretty sure Jameson is a quick learner and will know what is the right way to use the tools. Stupid2 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Knows policy well, no obvious concerns. NF24(radio me!) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Per WP:DEAL, I don't believe the opposes have raised sufficient concerns about this user to keep him from being an admin. Gromlakh (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support Orderinchaos 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I could not find anything in the editor's history or questions that would cause me to be concerned to have them be endowed with the administrator's tools. --Ozgod (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Opppose Unless I have read the stats wrong, this editor has only really been active for three months and around a quarter of their total edits have been made this month. They do good work using AWB to fix typos, but is there any need to grant the mop to continue that work? In either case, I'd like to see more time active on the Wiki for an admin, and more non-automated/semi-automated edits Whitstable (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OpposeNot really enough experience. I didn't understand this [1]. You create the page, then blank it the next minute? Maybe later, though. SpencerT♦C 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer that question, I believe that was related to a mistake I made when I accidentally thought I was editing my userpage, but ended up creating an actual article. Please note that the edit shows that it was an attempt to create a userpage, not trying to create an autobiography regarding an unremarkable person, such as myself. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct template for that is {{db-self}}. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote from WP:CSD#G7: "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." So there is no need to add templates. —Kurykh 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now. Vote still stands, as not enough experience. SpencerT♦C 13:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Not quite enough experience, although seems to be heading in the right direction (well as far as the AFD's).--JForget 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opposte per lack of experience, and lack of knowledge of basic policies and templates, per above comment. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Not quite as familiar with policy as he needs to be, nor is there a demonstrated need for the tools (i.e. fixing typos and improving articles don't require the mop). I'd suggest a little bit of admin coaching and a little more experience in admin-related areas. I look forward to supporting you in a few months. --jonny-mt 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Just needs a bit more experience before I can support. Jmlk17 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose 3 to 6 months... maybe, but not yet. Jauerback (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Continue editing actively for a few more months, then apply again and I'll gladly support. Timmeh! 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose for lack of experience, lack of variety. Needs to get involved in a greater variety of Wikipedia activities to be better able to help with many requests that would come an admin's way. Hard to see need for admin tools to continue the work this user is already doing. Seems a good enough editor to become admin someday. Doczilla (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose As above: Lack of experience, give it a couple more months. - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. oppose not convinced that this editor has the length, or breadth, of experience required. Relatively short substantive editing history, and limited range of topics covered in article space edits... Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Seems to lack understanding of speedy deletion policy [2] [3] [4] and to overtag articles to a ridiculous extent [5] [6] [7]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that you are opposing due to "blind tagging" due to #6, please take a look at this, because I'm not just tagging, I'm also improving what was previously an article with serious NPOV issues, reliable sources to support irrelevant issues to establish justification, and actually, if I remember correctly, I removed a couple links that were references that were actually biased articles themselves that did nothing but showing the existence of the issues covered by AirportWatch, but has nothing about the organization itself at all. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Spend more time to interact with other users. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate on your comment. As of right now, my talk edits amount to 1791, which is 41.836% of all of my edits. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you are referring to personal contact with other editors... deeper than the standard "your article is about to be deleted" or "I would like to propose this change to better conform to WP:UNI article guidelines", then perhaps my attendance of the recent Miami2 WP Meetup could count for something? I'm not trying to be bitter or not WP:AGF, just simply trying to see what exactly you're referring to so I know what areas I should work on. Thanks. - Jameson L. ai talk ♦ contribs 08:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what he is meaning is interaction with other users on such pages as WP:AN/I and WP:AN, discussing policies, and other admin related duties. As well as interacting with the community, not just one user or by letting a user know their page has been marked for deletion. Tiptoety talk 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose 3 months of active editing just isn't enough for me. Try again in a few months at the earliest (a year would be preferable). ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A year? I understand opposing for inadequate length of editing, but a year is way beyond normal requirements. Also, is it really necessary to Strong Oppose (rather than simply Oppose) a good editor for being a little inexperienced? Personally I reserve "Strong Oppose" for people who are fundamentally unsuitable for adminship and would be actively harmful to the project as admins (thus I very, very rarely use it; I think the last time was on Kelly Martin's RfA.) WaltonOne 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but Strong Opposes are completely unnecessary (almost to the point of uncivilness or biting, IMHO) unless we get another user who nominates themselves less than four hours after joining. NF24(radio me!) 12:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - This editor looks great, a really nice college student, but he has not been active long enough (3 months?) for me to evaluate this user. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing a very large amount of opposes due to the fact that I was active on this account for three months, when in reality I was editing on IPs for quite a while between the time I started the account and when I begun editing on my formal account here. I actually started editing on different articles on Wikipedia since I was in high school about five years ago. However, I do acknowledge the inability to formally verify my editing experience unless I have everything on one account. I just wanted to get this point across so I don't sound like a complete n00b at this.  :-) And believe me, I will definitely try again later on in about three to six months to gain more experience, as well as increase "interact[ions] with other users". Thank you to those of you who have given me excellent constructive criticism so far! And yes, I know the mop is not supposed to be treated as a birthday present...it was just a mere coincidence on dates. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - While i know this users intentions are good, i think this RfA is premature. I feel that edit count is just a number, but when the user only has 4,000+ edits and most of them are typo fixes or minor edits i just dont see the need for the tools, i guess i also have a adequate time assessing the cadidated because they are limited to what they do and there is not a whole lot of it. I also feel like this user is a bit trigger happy when it comes to tagging articles for deletion, this article clearly shows that, this article could have just been improved instead of tagged, this one should have been sent to AfD, and im not quite sure what happened here. I also dont feel that the supports above have any good reasons, as they are based on someones intuition, and many others state he needs more work. This user needs to gain some more experience in admin related ares in try in 3-4 months. Tiptoety talk 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose for now with moral support. I’m concerned that he doesn’t completely understand the CSD, particularly G1 (WP:NONSENSE) per this discussion I had with him last month. —Travistalk 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Neutral With interactions with this user, I know that this user is a good user; he have made contributions mainly on Florida related articles. However, there are some experience concerns; has only been active for about three months. I will support if you try again in a few months. NHRHS2010 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. A good faith editor but inexperienced as shown by the multiple AfD nominations mentioned above and the uncertainty about CSD A7. Also, adminship is not really an appropriate birthday present, nor an award... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Sorry, but I can't support you without a few more months of experience. I have no doubt you will make a great admin then. Malinaccier (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Per Kim Dent-Brown's second point, I don't have a problem to your answers, just your experience, and I wouldn't call adminship a birthday present... The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (Happy Birthday when it comes by the way :)!)[reply]
    No, I understand the mop's not a supposed to be a 21st birthday present... it's a date coincidence. And thanks for the early birthday wishes! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral until my question is answered. NF24(radio me!) 11:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - you seem like a good editor, but I don't have 100% confidence in you just yet. A little more experience, and I'm sure you'll be fine.--BelovedFreak 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jamesontai&oldid=1090626774"