User:MacMed/RFA note
A question for you
[edit]Hi there,
You commented on my first RFA, and cited a lack of experience as your reason for opposing. The time since my last RFA is coming up on 3 months, which seemed to be the general timeframe that people wanted me to wait. I'm coming to you now to ask you if it would be possible for you to take another look at my edits, and see what other advice you might give to me (both in editing style, location, and experience in general). I would greatly appreciate the time that you take to do this, and I ask that you not "sugarcoat" your reply. Tell me honestly what you think is my best course of action as an editor.
Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Simple. Don't do what I do and you should be fine. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- (holy crap you're enthusiastic) For sure, definitely talk to KoH. Most people who regular RfA want at least 3000 edits and 6 months between RfAs (unfortunately...). I will probably support since you're really, really enthusiastic, and doing some pretty good work. One thing that stands out to me is that you don't have very many contributions in admin-related areas since your last RfA. Try new page patrolling and participating more in AfDs (which reminds me, I need to get back on AfD work too...). I'll reply with more later, as I currently have history homework to do...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, new page patrolling, which Unionhawk proposed, is certainly an area where one can make many mistakes, so it would fit the bill of my first comment in your RfA. However, I disagree with the classification of any particular area as "admin-related". All of Wikipedia is admin-related. That said, Unionhawk's advice is probably good: It's just human for voters to expect a candidate to be good in what they do themselves, and there seems to be a preponderance of voters these days in the area of new page patrolling. My own preference, though, would be if you could show experience as a mediator. — Sebastian 03:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: I replied to the above before I realized that the page was transcluded. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's very unusual. I would have preferred a short message asking me to reply on this page, which would have been more transparent. — Sebastian 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not care how long candidates wait before a rerun, but I always like to play it safe when actually running for something or nominating someone for something. The general wisdom seems to be to wait 6 months if the first RfA failed in uncontroversial circumstances. Now again, if you ran now, you would be more likely than not to pass, but waiting three more months will make your chances even better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Heh - I thought my page was popular until I saw the above from Sebastian about the transclusion :) I'll have a look and get back to you. Pedro : Chat 07:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be honest MacMed, I would consider opposing you just for using a talk page template like this. Wikipedia can be a confusing place, and it is very important that we admins not communicate in overly elaborate or clever ways. This template is pretty cool, but not something that an admin should use. This is the type of intangible that any RfA candidate needs to be cognizant off when asking for suggestions. That said, the most important thing to take away from my comment is not that you should change your behavior simply to pass an RfA. Rather, you should ask if said change in behavior is something worth doing just to become an RfA. If you like working here in one way, and the admin responsibilities would prevent you from enjoying the project in that manner, is the mop actually something you want? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- In an honest reply, I figured it would be easier to watch just one page instead of the 6 talks. However, hindsight is 20/20, and per Sebastian's comment above I would likely follow his advice in the future and simply leave a link to this page. This isn't a big part of what I do on Wikipedia, and I don't think it would decrease my enjoyment to change a simple thing like a talk page message. Thanks for your opinion though. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- At least you got to figure that out with a group of pretty experienced editors, rather than a group of newbies. If you're going to do something like this, where you want input from a bunch of editors, I would post a link to a discussion thread (like this) to the talk pages of the editors, rather than transcluding it.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- In an honest reply, I figured it would be easier to watch just one page instead of the 6 talks. However, hindsight is 20/20, and per Sebastian's comment above I would likely follow his advice in the future and simply leave a link to this page. This isn't a big part of what I do on Wikipedia, and I don't think it would decrease my enjoyment to change a simple thing like a talk page message. Thanks for your opinion though. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)