User talk:I'm Spartacus!/RfA Criteria

Leaving discussions in one place

Totally agree. I hate cross-posting. If you're going to do that, you might as well e-mail back and forth. IMO, Wikipedia is designed for conversations to occur on one page. Enigma ^message 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my coaching candidate "Happyme22" coaching page. His talk used the one sided method and if I was simply reviewing him, I would have have been convinced that he wasn't ready for the tools. But Sandy Georgia recommended him, so I dug in deeper. By looking at his responses, on other people's talk pages, it changed the image I had of Happy. When you can only see the criticism/objections, they look stronger than when you can see the response.Balloonman (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nom?

I have noticed you are very thorough in vetting RFA candidates. I looked over your nomination subpage and I think I'm up to it. On the advice of Dweller I sought an edit review, but it has been over a month with no reviews, so I thought I'd ask if you'd look me over and see what you think. Thanks for your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'll put you in the queue... one thing that you might want to consider is modifying your signature to put the link to your Editor Review in the sig. That's the second best way, IMO, to get people to go to your ER. The best way is to do what you just did, ask.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter

Just a suggestion, the Toolserver counter is known to work better. For example, this. Sam ^Blab 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history link is broken

Just letting you know that the edit history link you have is broken. Otherwise, thanks for an informative page :)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 01:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]