As you will have seen it has been removed. Please do not treat RFA or Wikipedia as some kind of joke as you only waste hardworking contributors time. I hope you will focus on editing and reading this encyclopedia - If I can help out I'd be more than happy to. Pedro | Chat 21:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HarryMaxwell, I'm sorry to inform you that I've closed your request for adminship early because it was unlikely to succeed. For users to be granted admin status, they have to show that they are trusted members of the community. Individual editors each have their own standards for adminship candidates, but here are a few tips that may help you pass the next time round:
Wait a bit longer before your next request. Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months.
Try to get some more edits. Administrators need to show they have a thorough understanding of policy, so it would be a good idea for you to contribute in wikipedia space, article space and talk space to show you can communicate with others.
You may wish to take a look at the admin coaching program, which would allow you to have your own coach who could personally direct you along the right path, or consider an editor review, allowing other users to comment on your edits and give you ways to improve. The guide to requests for adminship provides further considerations to make before applying again. Let me thank you for your contributions so far, and if you follow the above advice, there is no reason why you can not have a successful RfA in the future. ShalomHello21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy not to bite newcomers. RFA is a kind of war zone among longtime contributors, and we don't want you to get caught in the cross-fire. Just sit back, click on the "Community Portal" (link on the left sidebar) and find something useful to do. :) ShalomHello21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on HM Tiger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Spratton Hall School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Charlene04:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
