User talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/5

Page protection
Myself and another admin have responded to 3 of your page protection requests at WP:RFPP, and I figured I'd give you some more detailed info here. Two of the requests you made, Gimingham and File:Gimingham Church, Norfolk.jpg, were for pages that had no history of disruption. Because our overall policy on Wikipedia is that we should be as open for editing, including editing by anonymous IP editors, as possible, we don't semi-protect or move-protect articles unless there is evidence of past vandalism on the articles. Or, as we often say at RFPP, "Pages are not protected preemptively". Under the same basic principle on Ronan Parke, you asked for indefinite semi-protection. It is quite rare that we would make our very first protection to an article to be indefinite. That's why I only dropped on a 1 week protection; if the vandalism resumes after that time, we can try a longer protection, and if it still resumes, we can eventually go up to indefinite.

I hope this helps you understand the protection system a little more; let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi there. I just removed your RfA as it was improperly formatted. Before you rush to put it back, I wanted to advise you against running at this time. Your first edit was 21 September 2011, less than two months ago. No user has ever had a successful RfA with only two months of experiance. You are likely to get a half dozen opposes in rapid succession, each claiming, with various levels of politeness, that it is too soon for you to run.

Please continue to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and consider running again in six to ten months, as 8 to 12 months on Wikipedia is at the low end of where people start to be successful with RfAs.

If you're looking for things to do, please read this page, which lists many, many constructive things that need doing.

Sorry to step in like this,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In the time that I took to write this, two people already opposed the RfA, both citing the page I linked to above. Please don't take any of this personally. As I said, no one has ever received the mop after just two months.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

9c192d7a0b861f23eb7750bf5dd644ce

TUSC token 11a327a2fb62d109c3303e5408706cfb
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

FAR page
Hi Tomtom - As you have probably noticed, your featured article review nomination page of the University of Cambridge has been deleted. This was mainly because the page had almost no content, and was deemed to be a "test page". However, I wanted to leave a note here about some technicalities. The featured article review process is for articles that have already been promoted to featured article status and need to be reworked to bring them back up to featured quality, or they have their featured status removed. The featured article candidacy process is probably the one you are looking for, as that is the process which allows articles to be promoted to featured article status. You may also be interested in looking at the featured article criteria, which are what candidates for featured status are judged against. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)