Jump to content

User talk:Dueyfinster/archive/adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admin Candicy and Talk

[edit]

Talk Page Archive Begins Here

[edit]

Please, before you write here advising me against the Admin vote, please consider what I am about to write. I am self nominating because I plan to put another nomination sometime way in the future for myself. I have read the nomination failures, some people get through on second nominations. I just want to see what people think of my editing and NPOV and so forth.....to see whether other admins agree/disagree with what I have done so far. This I believe will improve my chances second time round, and I will have the experience behind me aswell. Also, people will watch my editing from here on in, knowing I plan another nomination, all the more important for a)watching for mistakes I could make b)support for next time. I thank you all for the time you have taken to write your opinions, I will read every single one of them and use it to improve. Thanks! User:Dueyfinster 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your RfA

[edit]

Greetings. With all respect, I'd like to point out that you have just 110 edits. Since I began keeping track (437 completed RfAs ago, back to June 27, 2005), not one person with less than 750 edits has had a successful RfA. Based on this, your RfA will fail. Your contributions are insufficient for people to draw any conclusions about you and your ability with respect to the project. Also, you should have answered the questions on the bottom portion of your RfA. Failure to do so will result in even more oppose votes. I recommend you withdraw your RfA until you've had more editing experience. In the very least, it would be a good idea to clear 1,000 edits prior to your next application at RfA. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. All the best, --Durin 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is, there is so little to go on people are most likely all going to say the same thing; insufficient experience. I'll give you a tip; don't put comments at the top of people's talk pages. Put them on the bottom :) --Durin 21:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading what you've just said above, I'll reiterate; there is too little to go on to give you any realistic feedback on your editing here. 34% of your edits are to your userpage alone. The only main namespace article you've had significant contributions to is Coláiste Chiaráin. Bottom line here is experience; get involved, make significant contributions, contribute more to vandalism fighting (yes, you've done some, but as with all else in your contributions so far, not enough yet). Also, you've got your preferences set to mark all edits as minor, I suspect. Minor edits are just that; minor. This edit by you is not minor. Also, you're not using edit summaries at all. I refer you again to WP:GRFA. Lastly, WP:RFA is not a forum to advertise yourself for future RfA attempts. You will become known and respected in the community not by having a failed RfA but by making significant contributions and helping out the project in meta ways. --Durin
21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean having a failed RfA as a way of getting noticed, it is a serious propostion, my response above is just an understanding of why it is likely to fail. I am not trying to waste anyones time. I will fix the minor edits issue and refer to the other wikipedia documentation reffered above, thanks for the advice.

Your RFA

[edit]

Please see the instructions for making a nomination [1], the order is quite clear, create the RFA subpage before including the template in the main page. I seriously suggest you withdraw your RFA as you have no where near enough experience of wikipedia and I suspect you will rapidly amass a lot of oppose votes. You can see peoples personal guidance for what they believe is a support level here. Look at the other current RFA's and you'll see comments regarding the use of edit summaries, number of edits, number of project page edits etc. compare these to your own levels. You can also see your own edit summary here Thanks --pgk(talk) 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you don't appear to have answered the standard questions, people will certainly comment on that. I'll also agree with Durin, talk comments go at the bottom of the list, not the top. --pgk(talk) 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry just fixing up a couple of mistakes in my original posts! --pgk(talk) 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RFA

[edit]

Specific points in your nomination statement that appear to be untrue -- based on your lack of article space edits outside the articles you have contributed, you have done extremely little RC patrol, and contrary to your assertion, you do not "nearly always" put explanations for the edits you make. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my response to: (talk), please check, thanks. Duey Finster 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

[edit]

Might I suggest an early withdrawal of your request? It's unlikely that your nomination will succeed and I would encourage you to aim your energy towards building up your edits so that a later nomination is feasible. Many thanks. -- Francs2000 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]