This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RFAs and Edit counts
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just a heads up in recent RFAs people have been opposing candidates with less than 3000-4000 edits, I am not suggesting that it is a requirement I just wanted to give you a little feedback on the premature closure of your RFA, likely you would have garnered little to no support at your current edit count. This link [1] is to the RFA standards from an experienced/generally awesome admin have a look at it, it may be helpful... RP459 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
...and if you keep applying and failing some people will oppose simply on the grounds that you've had five or six failed RfAs; regardless of your edit count. Just settle down and get on with some editing. You really need to have been actively contributing in different areas of Wikipedia for at least a year, e.g. article editing, speedy deletion, vandalism fighting, new page patrolling, etc, etc. Of course there are some exceptions to this. ~~ Dr Dec(Talk) ~~ 13:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Village Pump
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just to let you know I didnt think your thread was inappropriate and if you want to reinstate it I think lots of editors would comment, whether or not they agree with your basic premise I can not guarentee. I think more theoretical broad discussions should be encouraged, such as the one you started, and not necessarily with any actual proposal change to policy. Questions like yours stimulate conversation and tend not to be to drama-filled.Camelbinky (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Editor Review: done
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Perhaps you could consider doing a review of another editor? It takes a bit of time (reviews can take anywhere from about 15 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, where they have contributed, etc).
The ones marked with a * are those editors who have not been reviewed yet — if you want to review one of these, make sure you remove the asterisks in the parts indicated!
If you have not done a review before, you might feel more comfortable giving a second review to an editor — this will show you an example of a review that has been done, and show you the kinds of things that can be commented on.
I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it.
