User talk:CO: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Walton One (talk | contribs) coaching - yes |
Walton One (talk | contribs) →Admin coaching: - OK, some advice |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Admin coaching== |
==Admin coaching== |
||
Yes, of course I'll coach you. If it's OK with you, I might get another admin to help as well. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|talk]]</sup> 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
Yes, of course I'll coach you. If it's OK with you, I might get another admin to help as well. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|talk]]</sup> 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I only just saw your recent RfA. It looks like some Oppose voters were quite unfair to you, but even so, it might have been best to ask for advice before rushing into it - RfA is a harsh process, unfortunately. As it is, it will be best if you wait at least 3 months before going for your next RfA; some RfA voters are uncomfortable with seeing a second RfA too soon. (I have no idea why.) The RfA highlighted some problem areas that you can work on: |
|||
:*''Incorrect marking of minor edits.'' This shouldn't be a problem to fix - just remember not to mark XfD nominations as minor edits. I understand that this is a pointless reason to oppose, but unfortunately some RfA voters can be obsessive about things like that. |
|||
:*''Incorrect licensing tags on images.'' Just remember to review the licensing thoroughly before uploading an image, and make sure it complies with image use policy. |
|||
:*''Reverting good-faith edits as vandalism.'' That's not your fault - anyone can make mistakes, and I expect the opposers pulled out 1 bad revert out of hundreds of good ones to attack you with. But that's just how RfA is. In future, if you make an error like that (which I've done in the past) you can just apologise to the user on their talk page and retract the vandalism warning. |
|||
:*''Divisive and inflammatory userboxes.'' Personally I don't see what was wrong with creating an anti-gay userbox, but probably best to stay away from userbox creation for now. |
|||
:I'm sorry if this advice seems a bit depressing - the trouble is that RfA is a very harsh process, and all the mistakes from your past will invariably come back to haunt you. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton_monarchist89 2|It happened to me!]] Anyway, keep up the good work and in 3 months you'll be ready for adminship. I'll check your progress periodically, and I'll also get the advice of some other admins. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>[[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|talk]]</sup> 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:19, 18 June 2007
User:Wikihermit/Talkpagedesign
| This is CO's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
|
Beginnings - May 31 2007 124kb |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Portugese
When you close an RFD as keep (such as this one), please make sure to actually remove the RFD tag from the article. I've taken care of this one. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Yes, of course I'll coach you. If it's OK with you, I might get another admin to help as well. Waltontalk 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I only just saw your recent RfA. It looks like some Oppose voters were quite unfair to you, but even so, it might have been best to ask for advice before rushing into it - RfA is a harsh process, unfortunately. As it is, it will be best if you wait at least 3 months before going for your next RfA; some RfA voters are uncomfortable with seeing a second RfA too soon. (I have no idea why.) The RfA highlighted some problem areas that you can work on:
- Incorrect marking of minor edits. This shouldn't be a problem to fix - just remember not to mark XfD nominations as minor edits. I understand that this is a pointless reason to oppose, but unfortunately some RfA voters can be obsessive about things like that.
- Incorrect licensing tags on images. Just remember to review the licensing thoroughly before uploading an image, and make sure it complies with image use policy.
- Reverting good-faith edits as vandalism. That's not your fault - anyone can make mistakes, and I expect the opposers pulled out 1 bad revert out of hundreds of good ones to attack you with. But that's just how RfA is. In future, if you make an error like that (which I've done in the past) you can just apologise to the user on their talk page and retract the vandalism warning.
- Divisive and inflammatory userboxes. Personally I don't see what was wrong with creating an anti-gay userbox, but probably best to stay away from userbox creation for now.
- I'm sorry if this advice seems a bit depressing - the trouble is that RfA is a very harsh process, and all the mistakes from your past will invariably come back to haunt you. It happened to me! Anyway, keep up the good work and in 3 months you'll be ready for adminship. I'll check your progress periodically, and I'll also get the advice of some other admins. Waltontalk 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)