This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giggy (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 24 June 2008 (→Thoughts from your coach). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:52, 24 June 2008 by Giggy (talk | contribs) (→Thoughts from your coach)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is Gary's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 1 day  |
Hi there!
I seemed to have addressed all your comments on Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates#List of Twin Peaks episodes. I has already been ten days since its nomination, and if you provide your support or objection, the FLC directors may be able to provide a consensus on what is to be made of the article. Thank you. (SUDUSER)85 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have capped my comments. Gary King (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:LOTD/WP:LOTM
Congratulations List of wealthiest foundations has been selected as a July WP:LOTD. It will appear in the WP:LOTD template for one day as an LOTD. If you have any preference on a days during July let me know before June 24th. If you have any other lists that you feel should be nominated next month please ad them at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200808.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of 2006 Major League Baseball all-stars
How does it look now (obviously the article - not the FLC) Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
FAC note
Gary, when articles have faulty footnote placement (WP:FN) as well as endash issues, you might want to refer the nominators to User:Brighterorange. His script fixes both of those items ... preferable to having nominators do that tedious and irritating work. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
WP Computing
Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian - 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts from your coach
As I probably need two of my current four FLCs to run through before going on another article writing spree (damn I haven't done that in a while), I'll leave some comments as your admin coach. For the purposes of discussion, I'll separate this into sections.
- Time - we're nearing the three month mark since your previous RfA, which is sufficient in the grand majority of cases to deflect the "OMG, power hunger" !votes that often appear for users that jump the gun too soon after their previous RfA. If you want, you certainly can wait longer to discount such opposes completely, but three months is generally the unofficial time between RfAs that is generally acceptable.
- Civility - if anything, you've gotten much better in this regard, as I can see by going down your archive (split that thing, it's absolutely enormous, if convienient). Your commentary at FAC/FLC/FTC is always civil and constructive, as is your conduct elsewhere.
- Administrative areas - the big caveat this time around is that you don't really need a strong participation per se in order to succeed per a nice example: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Karanacs. The big clincher in this case is your answer to question one, where you can note that you want to use the tools during your article writing process, for any problems at FAC/FLC/FTC nominations, and for template/coding stuff (since you said previously that you wanted to be involved in that and commented as such). That said, your partipation at WP:AIV and WP:RFP has been good (nice job on taking up some clerking as I suggested), and you've been going crazy with Huggle (your reports/reverts look pretty solid though, so it's a plus).
- Content contributions - well, I guess I should start more writing, or I'm going to be unseated at WP:WBFLN sometime in the future :p (you've already tied me at WP:WBFTN) But in all seriousness, your article writing is beyond reproach, and you're solid in this aspect for a future RfA.
- Comments from previous RfA - the big concern everyone has was with Pedro's concerns that you didn't heed criticism well with the category tagging thing, and I think I can safely say that you've certainly changed well in this regard. The other one was that you were simply going too fast with your edits and without care. You still go fast, but your edits are thought-out much better. Heck, fast is probably good, considering that the fast stuff is FAC/FLC/FTC commentary or Huggle edits.
As soon as the three month mark goes by (July 11), feel free to ask me to nominate you again, but my main reason for bringing this up (other than keep up the good work) is to ask other users to evaluate you (possibly open another editor review), especially the users that opposed your previous RfA. Again, all this is up to you, but I stand by my comments a while ago that having the tools is always a net plus for any good editor. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No idea why this page is on my watchlist, but I bags co-nomming! :-) giggy (:O) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (If you'll have me, that is!)