User talk:TheDireMaster/Archives/2010/January

RFAs and Edit counts
Just a heads up in recent RFAs people have been opposing candidates with less than 3000-4000 edits, I am not suggesting that it is a requirement I just wanted to give you a little feedback on the premature closure of your RFA, likely you would have garnered little to no support at your current edit count. This link is to the RFA standards from an experienced/generally awesome admin have a look at it, it may be helpful... RP459 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and if you keep applying and failing some people will oppose simply on the grounds that you've had five or six failed RfAs; regardless of your edit count. Just settle down and get on with some editing. You really need to have been actively contributing in different areas of Wikipedia for at least a year, e.g. article editing, speedy deletion, vandalism fighting, new page patrolling, etc, etc. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Dr Dec  (Talk)  13:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump
Just to let you know I didnt think your thread was inappropriate and if you want to reinstate it I think lots of editors would comment, whether or not they agree with your basic premise I can not guarentee. I think more theoretical broad discussions should be encouraged, such as the one you started, and not necessarily with any actual proposal change to policy. Questions like yours stimulate conversation and tend not to be to drama-filled.Camelbinky (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)