On Thu, 4 May 2006 14:59:36 +0200, you wrote:
> It would be better to have a guideline which says
someone should not
> even be nominated until they have passed agreed milestones, then we
> can assess candidates on their merits with the knowledge that they
> have passed some kind of minimum standard of wikipedian-ness.
Kind of like a speedy reject? Or more politely, a
"speedy come back
later". Sounds good to me. I propose 1000 edits, including 100 outside
the article and user namespaces, and at least 500 within the article
namespace. Also minimum 3 months active participation.
If precise minimum criteria was phrased in terms like
:Create 1 featured article or N good articles
:Graduate from Erik's "Wikipedia School" (which itself had precise
then I would support it.
Sadly I expect any proposal would actually be terms of (virtual meaningless)
edit counts, so I wouldn't.