Wikipedia talk:Getting the most out of a request for adminship

I'd be interested in thoughts on this, and for other editors to improve it. I'm aware that there is quite an overlap with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, and it may be appropriate to merge some or all of the content into that essay, but I've tried to address the issues in a different way, giving examples, and looking at how some of the less helpful comments are based on solid reasoning which needs to be expressed, while others are based on a lack of understanding of the process. So - are the examples valid? Is the concept useful? Should other issues be highlighted? Warofdreams talk 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I awarded you a barnstar. This essay is amazing. Evilclown93_(talk) 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job Warofdreams. I hope every regular RfA commenter reads this. Majorly (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay. I'll set up a link from the unofficial Guide to RFA. This really taught me a few things even though I'm a veteran of the RFA process, both as a candidate and as a voter. Yechiel Man 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great, Warofdreams, to say the least. :) It's very useful and informative. Acalamari 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WP:AADD gained most of its prominence from references in AfDs and DRVs. So, while it is important to not attack voters, politely making references to sections of this essay in response to votes that reflect possibly less-than-ideal practices seems the best way to have people read—and understand—this essay. Logical, and fun to read. Nice job :) Gracenotes^T § 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, with perhaps a little fine tuning, this could reasonably exist as a fine guideline. Just my opinion. Great work, Warofdreams. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 07:21, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Thanks. Would you like to propose any specific fine tuning - or be bold and attempt it? Warofdreams talk 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice page but I would suggest consolidating with WP:AAAD. >Radiant< 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay, very well written and clear. Could help a lot in advising people in how to use RfA - as the title suggests, and perhaps help improve WP:AAAD. Camaron1 | Chris 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I'm pleased that lots of you find it useful. There seems to be a growing feeling that it should be merged with WP:AAAD. If there continues to be broad support for this, I will make a go at it over the weekend. Warofdreams talk 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who is relatively new to the RfA process, I found this essay extremely helpful. --Paul Erik 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic essay, per ... ;-) GDonato (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WP:AAAD[edit]

This essay is succinct and examples are a plus. Agree to merge with WP:AAAD. - TwoOars 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I've had a bit of time to fully review both. The examples are a massive bonus and well thought out. Pedro | Chat 10:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good essay, Warofdreams, but...Wisconsin isn't so great (I believe the Packers are the only thing going for that state :D). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's beer, cheese and cream puffs (not to mention seeing concerts at the Pabst Theater) that are the only things going for the state, but you've got a point there, Michigan is far superior. :) I agree that the examples add a lot, great job on the merge. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]