Hello, Undead warrior. I've created this page to place comments and suggestions as I (and others perhaps) go along so as not to tie up your talk page.
From Dlohcierekim
editEdit summaries
editI noticed that you don't always use edit summaries. You'll want to go under your preferences and click the button that won't let you save without filling in the edit summary. Many RfA commenters require edit summary usage. It will also help to sort your contribs as other users review your edits. If you have not done so, you might want to consider the use of a tool like WP:TWINKLE to assist with tagging articles and leaving notes on user talk pages. It makes edit summary usage standard and easy to sift. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Other opposers
editIf you feel comfortable approaching them, you might want to ask some of the other opposers from your RfA for an editor review. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Summary
editUser:Dlohcierekim/On RfA has a lot of useful general RfA information.
I made a survey of the last 500 edits. Off hand, I think you are off to a good start. Most of the tagging I've looked at was accurate. I've listed some comments about some article taggings I thought could have gone better. Just continue cycling between article creation/improvement, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AIV reporting, and so forth. Seek feedback from other editors as you go along. It might be useful to create a section on your user page where you list articles you've created or worked on signifcantly. It helps others review your edits. I have two sub pages-- User:Dlohcierekim/Wikified and User:Dlohcierekim/create for that info. I would not try another RfA for at least another 3,000 edits or 3 months-- whichever is longer. You should ask someone else to review your work with images and AfD. I avoid images and I don't want to steer you wrong with AfD. User:Remember the dot is a good person to ask about images.
You might want to consider submitting to Wikipedia:Editor review and applying for Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Or approach a couple of admins you feel comfortable asking and ask them to review your editing. Hope this helps. Like I say, you are off to a good start.
Critiques--
- Actually, there was enough context to understand what the creator was talking about. It was redirected to a pre-existing article that goes more in depth. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Bainbridge High School (Georgia)
- Generally, High Schools are kept at WP:AFD. Some regard them as inherently notable.
- You may be stretching the {{{Notability}}} tag a bit out of shape. In my opinion, it should only be used about articles that fall in the categories "Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content." Check around though, other opinions may vary.
- Gotta be careful looking for sources when they might be in foreign language or another alphabet. In Poland, verifiable sources showing asserting notability find you. I got an oppose on my RfA because nominated for AfD article about Russian politician I thought was not notable.
Removal of speedy tags
- Deletion tags should not be by the article's creator0. They can be removed by another editor if he believes the article does not meet WP:CSD. He should notify the tagger and/or consider tagging for {{{subst:prod}}} or {{{subst:afd}}}, depending on the strength of the claim to notability and verifiable sources.
Copyvios
- For copyvio's you should provide a link to the source if from the web. Even then, you can not be sure. Just because an image is high quality does not mean it is from the web. My Image:500mm telephoto lens 01.jpg was retouched by someone here and looks much better than it started out.
Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I just found this page on google, and thought I would leave you some tips about WP:RS as a lot of people don't seem to know about what I consider some excellent ways of finding them- for instance in an AfD a lot of people don't look, so it's hard for them to judge notability, or to write sourced articles. If you go on google, at the top you can find links to google news,[1] books [2] and scholar [3]. I find these are invariably excellent for finding WP:RS- and so not just for writing articles, but for checking if something is notable in an AfD too. On wikipedia they have started saying "verifiability, not truth". What this means is, "well I remember hearing it so I'll put it in" (even if no source can be found) or "I've read it on a forum/someone's myspace, and theirs is usually true, so I'll add it," is not the best thing to do. If it's a thing that you've heard will happen in the future, it will be covered in the WP:RS press in due course, until then we can't guarantee it will happen or is happening. Normal google search will rarely find WP:RS but all sorts of forums, sales websites etc so it's not really any help.
If I were planning to run for adminship and I discovered that an article I made in the past did not meet WP:RS, I think what I would do is ask for it to be deleted myself, as quickly as possible, so that if someone else found it or someone noticed it in the -ruthless- scrutiny people come under at RfA, it wouldn't count against me because I've acknowledged and changed it.
Anyway I hope this advice is helpful to you and helps you become an admin, as I believe you'd be an excellent admin. :)Sticky Parkin 01:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)