Category talk:Suggestions/Archive1

	Archive Page
	This page is an archive page of Category talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the page do so at Category talk:Suggestions.

Discussion

Invalid Votes & Justification

I was under the impression that only sysops were to strike invalid votes and users were only allowed to strike multi-votes, unsigned votes, and non author REs, however because of this incident I've been going through the rules and it actually doesn't say anything about how invalid votes will be dealt with beyond the Note ability for Sysops. While digging through the archives I found this but it actually doesn't answer any questions, it even confuses the issue some as it seems that the justification rule wasn't voted on by the community and has no basis beyond a decision by LibrarianBrent, it did come up here and here again, and it seems a consensus among some users was reached that users can't strike each others votes for such a reason. So I guess I'm asking why the comment that unjustified votes are invalid hasn't been removed when it's purpose is obviously non-existent and all it has done since is cause drama. It has come up for removal(at least in discussion) before, but it seems nothing ever came of it. So, I guess that this is now two questions, Why was(and is) LibrarianBrent's change in the rules still without ever having been voted on or, rightly so, enforced, and what are the users limitations on strike votes, cause that has and will continue to cause problems if people can now strike votes they don't think are justified or meet any of the other invalid votes criteria.--Karek^maps?! 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

well it does say very clearly on the page that ANY user can strike/remove them... asking for trouble really but I don't remember a time when it wasn't there!--Honestmistake 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which page? Ah, I see now, still make no sense that a rule that was never voted on is being enforced, and much less that every user can do it although in the above discussion it seemed most people were against that.--Karek^maps?! 01:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, and it's actually rather new.--Karek^maps?! 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Who put it there? You must be right cos there have been times when I wanted to strike votes and didn't... Of course I don't actually know how to strike through and that is the more likely reason I didn't ;) --Honestmistake 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxy created it sometime in either June or April, I can't remember which, it's in the history. --Karek^maps?! 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

History shows: 12:21, 20 May 2007 --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything I put on those pages when I created them to change over from the old (single page) suggestion system was either a direct copy and paste (with minor changes where they were needed to fit in with the new system), or stuff related to the new system, and approved by policy. The invalid vote stuff came from the old system, and has always been in place, AFAIK. I didn't just make this stuff up, if that's the implication -- boxy • talk • 15:43 16 November 2007 (BST)

Yeah, i remember that. Heres a link for you newbies. Oldest remaining revision of the suggestion intro template: Link Look under INVALID votes. Its been around for as long as the wiki can remember (19 months)--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's age is inconsequential, especially considering, as I've shown, it's come up as an issue multiple times with people annoyed and ticked off that a policy that was never voted on was being enforced and it was never removed. It's more sysop negligence in not removing something from a protected page that the community can't revert then anything else.--Karek^maps?! 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct Action

As these rules were not voted on by the community, are difficult (if not impossible) to police, and cause untold drama and bad feeling in the wiki, I've altered the SugVoteBox template, by removing the word "justified" and replacing "justification" with "optional comment". To complete this task, I would like a sysop to edit the SugVoteRules template to remove the "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." part of the "Invalid Votes" section. While they're at it, that templete reads "Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described below", but it isn't described on that template at all - it's all the way over here instead. Could a link be added, please? No new user will even know where that page is, trust me. (Come to think of it, we have far too many suggestions talk pages now as well. Took me ages to find this - I kept going to Category_talk:Current_Suggestions by accident. Sheesh - this place is a right mess.) One last thing, on Suggestions#Removing_Suggestions it states that "In general, suggestions may not be removed as spam unless voting has been open for 6 hours." Please could a sysop remove the words "in general", as those were added by Gage against the specific wording of a policy vote and the clear wishes of the community. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and done. – Nubis 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The justification rule has been there for ever, way back on the old suggestions system for as long as I can remember. It may not be enforced, but that's because it's not a problem in the large scheme of things. But removing it will mean that if it does become common practice to not justify kill votes, we have no rule to fall back on to encourage people to give reasoning. I can see a future where the suggestion pages just become full of "keep", "kill" and "wtfun00b" votes with no justifications, and that will be a sad day for this wiki, given that suggestions has been one of the main focal points of the wiki, and a source of new blood.
I would suggest that you either need a suggestion policy change, or a very clear consensus after a discussion for this change to be valid. Two people saying "this is a good idea", and "you're right, done" doesn't cut it -- boxy • talk • 15:36 16 November 2007 (BST)

You don't need a rule to fall back on. Or, rather, you already have one. Vandalism includes (doesn't it?) any bad faith edit of this wiki. As it was before the edits made above, anyone could argue that the location of their vote, was their justification. If you treat what they write as just a comment, then that becomes clear - so it doesn't matter whether they write a ten page essay on the pros and cons of the suggestion, or simply the word "wibble", you are aware of their intention, which is all that really matters. And "that's the way we've always done it" is not a good enough reason to keep it, next to the huge amount of drama, bad feeling and edit conflicts that arise from "the way we've always done it". As it wasn't voted on (within memory), how about we try this new way, and if that doesn't work, we can iron out a policy for a new system. Or, put together a policy for enforcing justification. The halfway house we had wasn't working. If people feel strongly enough that I'm wrong and replace it, or undo my edits - well, I'm not a sysop - there's not anything I can do about it. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that forcing justification is akin to forcing debate and discussion - which is supposed to take place on the suggestions discussion areas of the wiki, not on the voting page. Finally, your complaints about the change revolve around a potential future scenario. Why not just wait and see for a bit? Can it do a huge amount of harm? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like anyone is going to get "bad faith edited" for making an unjustified vote once you remove the only rule saying they should justify their vote! And I'm not just saying "that's the way we've always done it", I'm saying that it's a rule that isn't worth enforcing while it's not a major problem, but just having it there encourages justification (a good thing), and may be needed in the future. The drama has come about because people are insisting on trying to enforce for no other reason than because there's a rule on the books, and other people (you included) are pushing the issue with your rash of unjustified "Grim" votes. It's just like jaywalking laws... you go to a country town, one car every half hour goes by... does the town cop book people for wandering across the street? No, but if it is a problem, in a big city, and people decide that crossing in dangerous situations is a good idea, causing traffic chaos, then they can be prosecuted.
As to your suggestion that "wibble" votes are fine and dandy... well, I can handle a few of them every now and then, but this will encourage them to the point where they become commonplace, and just saying keep or kill is the norm. Newbies cant learn from unjustified votes -- boxy • talk • 16:44 16 November 2007 (BST)

I can see you hugely disagree with me. I've stated my side of things. I can only fall back on "Why not just wait and see for a bit?" Perhaps what you envisage will not come to pass. I think we should give the community more credit here, and assume that good faith will be the result. (By the way, my "rash of unjustified 'Grim' votes" amounted to exactly two.) --Funt Solo ^QT 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just waiting for a bit on this wiki is akin to accepting this policy change permanently, because that's how this wiki deals with it's rules. The established ones are not majorly changed without a policy change or clear consensus. If I were to come back in a months time and insert a justification rule back into the rules, there would be hell to pay, leading to misconduct, I suspect, if I insisted on editing the new rule in despite opposition. I think that not expecting a justification is a bad thing for the suggestions system, and the wiki. I would rather go to a stricter enforcement (and I've argued against that before) of the policy than removing it... so sue me (but you wouldn't win, policy is on my side) -- boxy • talk • 17:09 16 November 2007 (BST)

Are you saying that you're going to reverse the edits and force me to go for a policy change? I'm minded that, so far, you're the only person who's complained about this. Also, you usually assume good faith, but your argument seems to assume bad faith of the entire voting community. I'm not trying to score points, but I think you might be reacting to this before you've had time to think about it. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, he is right about the justifications. I checked, and its been there for as long as records go back (19 months), you probably should go for a policy change instead of arbitrary replacement. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I could, if I wanted to be a dick about it. It seems like there's a real push on around here to do away with all this pesky democracy shite... but you're replacing it with nothing except "here's a good idea for a major change to rules" followed by a discussion of "sounds good, done" 10 minutes later. That's just not kosher unless you assume you already know that you have an overwhelming majority supporting it (it's been a controversial issue lately, so that's unlikely). Get real about this. Has anything come out of the consensus discussion that Grim started? Did you guys even try to implement it anywhere? Because it seems to me that it's just being pushed on the wiki, on the sly, here. Can you point me to a discussion where this was discussed in detail before, indicating community support for this removal? BTW, a suggestions policy discussion is simply put at the end of this page, and requires a minimum discussion time before voting/implimentation -- boxy • talk • 17:28 16 November 2007 (BST)

Well, I understand all that. But, at the same time, we can all make good faith edits without going through policy votes, if we judge that it's okay to do so. I judged that it was okay, in this case, and Nubis agreed with me for the sysop side of things. Trust me, if this causes a huge hulabaloo, I'll not be Captain Drama about it. I'm quite happy to have discussions and votes and so on. I just judged that it was acceptable common sense in this case. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I don't think we should immediately back-track just on the feeling that it's the wrong thing to do. I am absolutely trusting the majority of voters in the suggestions system to carry on providing balanced feedback to people who make suggestions. I understand also that any sysop can undo what's been done here, and I wouldn't try to start up any kind of edit war (not that I'd get far) over it, or any misconduct or drama of any kind. All I'm doing, now that this has happened, is wondering if, quite quietly and without any fuss, this might be a change that is positive, or that nobody really cares much about. I'm prepared to be proved a foolish dreamer, and eat two chocolate coated hats, come easter. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it'd be fun to have another suggestions page running alongside the current one that'd be for testing out new ideas. It wouldn't be anything serious, it'd just be for playing with different ideas and seeing how they turn out. --Toejam 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to follow this particular line of discussion as well... I have to agree with the idea that votes on the suggestions should be justified. Otherwise, it provides no feedback to the suggestor, as well as allowing people to vote rather than read the suggestion (which I know already happens, but I could see it getting worse). As well, the precedent for justification on votes has been a part of the process for so long, you might as well consider it precedent. To change it should require a Policy Change. If people thought that providing justifications was a bad idea idea, then they wouldn't have done it. Everytime someone provides a justification on a vote, they are further reenforcing the precedent that has been set. Like a Terms of Service agreement: if you use a service (like a cell phone), then you inherently agree to the Terms of Service simply by using that service. I hope that makes sense... it made sense in my head :-) --Ryiis 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a precedent if it is enforced rarely at best. Precedent is to not follow that rule. Also, suggestions voting isn't the place to discuss suggestions, it's not about feedback, that's what Talk:Suggestions is for.--Karek^maps?! 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Developing Suggestions can give a different sort of feedback to vote comments. In voting you get a lot of very short specific comments, and in Talk:Suggestions, there's fewer comments, but each one is longer, and they're at a more useful time. So I think both have their place. --Toejam 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How does Dupe work now?

I've noticed that suggestions with multiple Dupe votes still hang around like bad smells these days. It used to be, those would get removed when they had three or more Dupe votes. What's the deal, these days? Also, in the suggestions template, it has a bunch of rules for voting and it says "Dupe votes can be used to remove a suggestion, as detailed below", but then it isn't detailed below at all. Who's in charge of cleaning up that shiznit? It can't be me. I'm only on day release. --Funt Solo 12:53, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Sysops usually do it, and out of the sysops it's almost always Boxy.--Karek^maps?! 17:04, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Ah - he should get a medal, or some gold. In a basket. So they say. --Funt Solo 19:02, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Trolling

The suggestion voting guide specifically states that "trolling" will not be tolerated. Who decides what counts as trolling and who gets to remove/strike it? I remember seeing comments struck by mods in the past but not recently. --Honestmistake 10:04, 12 October 2007 (BST)

As far as I know no one bothers with that rule unless it's over the top.--Karek^maps?! 10:36, 12 October 2007 (BST)

It seems more like its sporadic rather than not bothered with. All the talk of civility policies seems to be stirring up a few assholes who are starting to be needlessly abusive just to start drama. I don't want a set in stone civility policy but the suggestion page is one of the few that specifically warn against trolling, if its not enforced it makes a joke of it being there! --Honestmistake 13:07, 12 October 2007 (BST)

I wouldn't exactly say trolling is an issue in suggestions, flaming maybe, not reading definitely, but not trolling.--Karek^maps?! 16:33, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Criterion for valid Dupe?

Recently, I've encountered an ambiguity about dupe rules: can already removed suggestions be valid objects for consideration in dupe votes? There should be a rule about this: dupe votes should only be allowed to refer to peer reviewed suggestions, peer rejected suggestions, peer undecided suggestions, spamminated suggestions or suggestions under voting.--Father Thompson 17:03, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Technically no, they can't. But I'm pretty sure a duped suggestion can be used to dupe a suggestion. It's a roundabout way of using the dupe used to dupe the suggestion that was already duped. Probably best not to do and just use the original which was why the duped suggestion was duped but as far as I know it's considered as such by most reasonable sysops. Basically what I'm saying is duped suggestions were duped for a reason so using them to dupe something kinda makes sense in an over though way.--Karek^maps?! 11:56, 18 September 2007 (BST)

Yar, it does kind of make sense, but it misses something important, and that's that small differences in suggestions can account for a lot. So even though suggestion B is a dupe of suggestion A, suggestion C, which looks a lot like suggestion B, might not really be a dupe of suggestion A. And once suggestion C gets in there, suggestion D, which looks a lot like suggestion C, but not as much like suggestion B, and is clearly different from suggestion A (the only one that received the benefit of a full vote), could potentially be struck down as a dupe, and all of a sudden a whole spectrum of ideas becomes impossible to vote on. Also, since the template on duped suggestions links to the original suggestion, the only real reason for a voter to link to a duped suggestion is if it looks more like the suggestion under voting than the original (which strongly promotes the roundabout banning of whole spectra of ideas, as described). I'm sure that this rarely results in the unfair removal of ideas, but I think that any change that allows us to depend less on the reasonableness of sysops, and more on the reasonableness of policy, is a good change.--Father Thompson 22:50, 18 September 2007 (BST)

I was going to suggest this too. There's no reason not to make this a policy because it's not that much trouble to Spam a suggestion if it really sucks. And then you would have a spammed suggestion which could be used for duping the similar enough ideas in the future. So it's practically a win-win situation. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:22, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Just noticed, you list only Peer Reviewed, Peer Rejected and suggestion under voting in the places that could provide a valid Dupe. Did you leave out Peer Undecided and Spaminated on purpose or did you just forget them? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:39, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Just an error- now fixed.--FT ^{MCDU: Black Knights} 12:46, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Spude-Spam/Dupe Combination

What starts off as a joke I think should become a legit vote. It makes sense. A suggestion is both "spam"-worthy as well as "dupe"-worthy. So, why not? If someone votes Spude, then that means that there is a Dupe vote then it counts as a Dupe vote. But if there is no Dupe vote, then it defaults to a Spam Vote.

So, how do I go through Policy Discussion on this? And is this a good idea?--ShadowScope 18:09, 10 September 2007 (BST)

If it's legitimately a duped suggestion, then there's no need to spam it, no matter how spammy it is- just point to the other suggestion and there you go. If a significant difference is pointed out, you're free to change your vote to spam. What's to be gained from labeling it as both?--Father Thompson 02:05, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Not needing to follow all the suggestions until their voting time is over? A lot of people don't check suggestions they've already voted on. Why not make Dupe-votes count as Spam if it fails to qualify as a valid Dupe? The logic being that the voter thinks that the suggestion is so close to an earlier suggestion that keeping it open for voting is a waste of the community's time, ie. Spam. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:59, 20 September 2007 (BST)

No Need to Add Keep In Front Of Every Keep Vote

Or Kill in Front of every Kill Vote. etc. Since the actual Vote is underneath a header that says Keep or Kill or Spam, it is obivous that all the votes are Keep or Kill or Spam. Hence, there is no real need for this useless bolded vote, except to differante spam from dupe.

I'm sure many people love adding that in the front, but other times, wiki voters add in silly stuff to prefix that, like "I approve this message" or "Spam, Spam, spam, baked beans, spam", etc. I often times don't add in anything at all except the reason I am against it, due to avoiding pointless redunancy. So it is getting a pet peeve of mine to see my vote edited to have the redunancy put back in. I know there was a ruling by a mod that says that it is not needed, but I feel it isn't being adhered to.

So, um...what exactly should I do?--ShadowScope 07:30, 19 August 2007 (BST)

If it bugs you, why not write you vote code like this-

  
# <!-- Keep / Kill indicated by section - DO NOT EDIT MY VOTE --> Vote justification  ~~~~
   

Which renders like this-

1. Vote justification  Swiers 14:34, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Alright sure. Thanks.--ShadowScope 19:46, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Proposal for Motion to create new vote type: Comment

Sometimes you haven't yet formed an opinion strong enough to allow a vote, but you might if you got a question answered. Alternately, maybe you have a thought others should consider when voting, but don't personally care about the votes outcome.

While the talk page COULD be used for this, lets face it; people don't look at the talk page much.

I propose a motion that (if passed) would allow for a new vote type (made in the spam / dupe area, or perhaps in its own section) called the comment. Comments would not count towards a votes passing or being rejected in any way, except in the possible instance where a suggestion gets so few votes it is considered not to have a "quorum". In that case, comment votes increase the total number of votes, but do not affect their balance.

h 16:45, 29 July 2007 (BST)

---

Put comments and discussion on motion development here

With comments, it would be a lot easier to work with some of the suggestors who have a few ambigious phrases in their suggestions. While all suggestions should be thought through well, sometimes people jump at getting it onto the Suggestions Page. Also, some of the best suggestions developed prior to voting still leave questions. The only reason that I could think of why not to implement this, is that someone can vote and ask the question in the comment of their vote - because the vote can be changed once they get an answer. However, I'm not a big fan of this because it makes the Voting section ugly, and at times hard to read. As well, it would be easier for the original author to spot out serious concerns before many people place a vote. That way, ambiguity can be cleared more quickly. --Ryiis 05:34, 31 July 2007 (BST)

I think the talk page is made for this type of comment. The people that can (and do) give meaningful answers to questions such as those already visit the talk page of suggestions. The motion below allows direct reply to a statement that contains an error. Comments that ask questions elicit discussion and should be kept on the talk page. 'arm. 05:49, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Nobody looks at the talk pages. BoboTalkClown 01:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DO WANT. --Toejam 01:17, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Swiers, why do you have this in two places on this page? 'arm. 03:13, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Because I put it in the other area first, then decided it was more of a "Further Discussion" than an actual "Vote", copied it up, and forgot to remove the other. I've moved its comments up here and deleted it. _Δ^Δ_{Δ  Swiers}  04:28, 1 August 2007 (BST)

---

Suggestion on Category_talk:Suggestions

Visit the link to discuss; I don;t want to fork the topic. _. ^. _{. swiers} 16:35, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Suggestions that go to voting

Currently all suggestions placed on this page have to go 5 days without additional comment before they get lableed as stale and then another 5 days without comment before they are removed. This is perfectly fine for most suggestions on this page, however I'd like to be able to remove suggestions that go to voting quicker that that. Once they go to voting, I suggest that the following added:

c --sig/timestamp

What do you reckon? 'arm. 02:33, 15 July 2007 (BST)

Well, I'm going to start using it until someone complains, then. 'arm. 23:40, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Lazy Suggestions

Now, perhaps I'm just way too lazy, but the entire suggestion process seems like a lot of work and time to invest. Not saying that's a bad thing, since, if it wasn't, there'd probably be a lot of really, really bad suggestions (wait... that's already true... - just teasing!)

Anywhoo, I'm thinking there should be a place where individuals can just post up a "Lazy Suggestion" that, if someone likes enough, they can take it and run with it and develop it into a real suggestion (with voting and everything!)

Perhaps there can be a page and every day any "Lazy Suggestions" that have been developed or are over 48 hours old (or something like that, time frame could be adjusted) would be deleted. Other rules could be created as well (One lazy suggestion per user per week, etc...).

This all came into mind because I wanted to suggest some kind of Stats page for clothing (see how many people are wearing any particular different piece of clothing and, I suppose, see how many active people are running around butt nekkid) but I don't have the time or interest to invest in seeing this suggestion all way through. Although, perhaps if I don't personally have the interest in seeing this all the way through, maybe it's not such a good suggestion after all. Just some thoughts. TheUncleBob 07:13, 8 July 2007 (BST)

Woah, didn't notice you down here at first. Personally, I think it'd be another page that'd get filled with spam fairly quickly. Or yet another page for suggestion developers to check! Since they come here already, we might as well use thing page - it can get some really good suggestion-developing going. I'll copy your proto-suggestion and put it up top (along with you saying that you don't want to run with it yourself). Putting things that this at the top of this page is a great way to get more visibility. 'arm. 22:04, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Isnlt that more or less what this page is? Just put your idea up here, and make it clear you'd like somebody else to post the actual suggestion. _. ^. _{. swiers} 16:37, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Main Suggestions Page

Could someone fix the main suggestions page? "Expanded New Selections" has been stuck on "knife change" for a couple of weeks and I personally do not know how to fix it --Gene Splicer 01:08, 20 June 2007 (BST)

Personally, I think this whole section could be deleted, considering suggestions now go on a separate page each. User:Monstah/Sig 02:12, 25 June 2007 (BST)

This conversation can probably go too, right? User:Monstah/Sig 01:54, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Well,there's a related coversation on the "Talk:category:current suggestions" page. Basicaly, it points out how this talk page is used largely for discussion development, and the suggestion page itself is hardly used at all. Personally I agree with the above; all suggestions should be removed from the suggestions page (this pages main page), and that page should simply give an overview of the process of making suggestions, links to current and past suggestions, links to tools used in hand;ling suggestions, suggestion author advice, and so on. _. ^. _{. swiers} 17:52, 11 July 2007 (BST)

I'm starting to think that parsing this suggestions talk page in the way you describe is indeed the most sensible. 'arm. 06:34, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Bookmarklets

While doing work for I/Witness I discovered these wonderful bits of old school tech. I'm mentioning this here because quite a few suggestions (usually ones related to user interface or information provided to the player) can in fact be implemented as bookmarklets. As such, the Bookmarklets page will have a section devoted to implementing the functions of peer-reviewed (and maybe other) suggestions via this format, as well as accepting suggestions for things people would like to have. --Seb_Wiers Imagine 00:10, 7 June 2007 (BST)

Freely RE

• Only the original author and the person being REd can comment.
• Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote

...is what the rules say at the minute. I don't like them because I think they stifle discussion and make the place less lively, so I want to take 'em down. But what's your opinion, people-who-aren't-me? --Toejam 15:21, 26 May 2007 (BST)

Discussion is what the discussion pages are for... and seeing each suggestion has it's own now, why not use it, with a link. I think the heavily structured system we have makes for a very good method of summing up the pro's and con's of a suggestion without having to trawl through pages of chat. Suggestion pages themselves are better off having considered opinion on them, rather than lively discussion. IMO -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:33, 26 May 2007 (BST)

But since every suggestion has it's own page, they really isn't any need to limit discussion, is there? It's not like there is one huge page to trudge through anymore.--Bluish wolf 12:56, 1 June 2007 (BST)

Yes but, again, that's what the discussion page is for. Not the voting page. If your getting THAT much "discussion" within the votes of your suggestion then there is probably something seriously wrong with it.--Pesatyel 07:19, 3 June 2007 (BST)

Suggestion pages themselves having considered opinion on them, rather than lively discussion. Lively discussion helps to create considered opinions. If we remove discussion completely of the page the amount of "considered opinions" would drop. about 90% of the votes are inconsidered bais already. The talkpage doesn't get the traffic to influence or shape votes into considered arguements for or against.-- Vista  +1  13:22, 3 July 2007 (BST)

There are jobs that a RE is better at than a discussion page, for example, the other day I made a arithmetic mistake in one of my votes, and a RE would be a far better tool to stop other people being influenced by my mistake than a discussion page. Another point to make is that discussion is a really really good thing. It's fun, and the sharing of information and opinions will tend to make more informed voters and suggestion authors. We should encourage it every way we can. REs can help, by acting as a seed for discussion. You could still scan the page for quick pro and cons if you wished to, all it would take is to read only the top level of indentation. --Toejam 16:33, 13 June 2007 (BST)

Ding-ding-ding That is a winner, Plenty of the times people don't see mistakes without discussion. Kevan doesn't use us to get new ideas, he uses the system to find the exploitable kinks in his own ideas so he can fix them. The more discussion, the more exposition the idea gets, the more Kevan is helped.-- Vista  +1  13:09, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Free Re's, but only to link to talk page?

How about allowing anyone to re a vote, but only to leave a message/link pointing to the discussion page to telling the voter that there is a reply to their point on the talk page? The author, of course, would still get to re, as with the current rules -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 04:13, 27 June 2007 (BST)

I like it. That way we don't see a really long list of people REing each other unless we wanted too.--User:Suicidalangel/Sig 04:16, 27 June 2007 (BST)

I like it too. --Toejam 06:20, 3 July 2007 (BST)

That's creating even more rules that would stiffle the system. How would that change the current system? Everybody is already allowed to do that. It is exactly the same as using the talkpage now. but you remove the last bit of interaction possible. It would get even less participation as now because even the author doesn't get to engage comment anymore.

Why don't we drop the original author requirement? So we allow every comment have one 1 re and 1 re-re and to move the entire discussion to the talkpage if continued after that. That way it is the same system we have no exept that the author doesn't need to watch around to clock to defend his suggestion. It's more in line with the wiki thought of working together to get better results. And it doesn't get untidy either as long discussion still happen on the talkpage.-- Vista  +1  13:17, 3 July 2007 (BST)

I like that idea. To be honest, I've been breaking the non author RE rule pretty much constantly anyway, usualy to point out a very minor detail, such as a cock-up in the numbers or some important data left out. --Seventythree 13:20, 3 July 2007 (BST)

And we end up with a)jokers cracking funnies as re's b) stalkers critising other voters that they hate every time they vote on any suggestion page c) those who maintain the system having to go around cleaning up the multi-re's because a lot of people are too lazy or to unfamiliar with the system to take it to the talk page themselves. I've seen you go back and move re's I've struck off suggestion pages, Vista, and that's all well and good, and "newbie-friendly", and all... but sometimes you've got to enforce the rules so that people have a reason to learn to do things properly themselves. Freeing up the suggestions pages will lead to a decrease in the quality of discussion, IMO. The reason that most (long) justifications for votes are of such a high quality (IMO) is that there is a "post limit" on the suggestions pages. You only have the chance to say all that you want in your own vote space, so you have to make the most of it. Opening it up so that anyone can have the single re on any vote isn't fair on the suggester either, if someone else gets in first and re's something they wanted to correct. Imagine coming to a vote, and having to take your criticism of it to the talk page because someone else got in first and said "oh, that's a very good point". Blah, I like the system the way it is, striking out all non-author re's... it works damn well -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 13:47, 3 July 2007 (BST)

• A)we probably will. we used to get some that in the old system, but we'll probably get less as in the clothes system. But a bit of levity isn't bad, Suggestions aren't all that serious anyway. If it gets to much we can always institute that the re's need to be on topic.
• B)we probably won't, We almost never got them in the old system while the wiki as a whole was a lot more tense and full of drama. We don't get them in the clothes system at all. Besides we're allowed to strike out trolling. And if it's continual it becomes bad faith.
• C)If nobody cares enough to clean it up it obviously isn't a problem. It's on a self contained page that doesn't pollute anything else. But even back in the day the results of the policy weren't that bad. Even if you look at the chaos that is the clothes suggestions page, each and every of those suggestion on itself aren't that bad. The problem was that we had dozens of suggestions, with 25 or more comments and no order in kill, spam or keep. The result were worse then the Clothes page. Reverting the non-author re rule wouldn't lead to that chaos again because the system just isn't the same anymore.
• as for unnamed argument D) How long have we been striking out comments and unsigned votes? And how much has it helped? A long time, and not one bit. My moving conversation to talk pages and pasting in sigs, has nothing to do with being newbie friendly, but with the fact that I find striking out idiotic and counterproductive because I think it stifles the spontaneity and interactivity that the pages need. It used to be that whole groups were born on the suggestions page and that it was the centre of the community. I'd like it to go back to that.
• and I also disagree with unnamed argument e) The quality of the comment has nothing to do with the amount of re's possible but only with the amount of insight the commenter has in game balance. We used to have just as much great and bad arguments in comments in the previous system, better actually, because they got refined.
• as for how well the current re system works... It's more tidy... like a straightjacket it does prevent making a mess. But seeing our first conversation/argument was also about this we've got widely different on this so we'll probably keep disagreeing.-- Vista  +1  18:59, 3 July 2007 (BST)

I like Vista's Idea. As long as people know to keep RE's on topic it'll be fine. And if anyone doesn't, a moderator can always leave them a polite message on their talkpage. Either that or copy the whole damn conversation onto their talkpage! That was quite funny, by the way...--Seventythree 20:33, 4 July 2007 (BST)

How do we protect the suggestion authors right of reply in that situation? If s/he wants to answer a criticism how would it work if there's already a re: in place, saying "good point, brother, you really set him/her straight"? -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 02:53, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Why thank you Seventythree, I aim to please. as for if there is an re already we simply could let the author have preferred status. The author may move other people's re's and substitute her own. I don't think it'll be that common so there wouldn't be much of an extra workload.-- Vista  +1  21:19, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Heh. Me and S.A where tempted to paste it on your talpage, but we decided that you might be a bit annoyed at that! You sure you still don't want a medal? S.A and target zombie seem to like theirs...--Seventythree 23:05, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah I read that :) As for the medal, If you stick it on my userpage there's nothing I can do about it whether I like it or not.-- Vista  +1  00:53, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I'd like that. My main problem is that I'm not sure if their going to check the talk page and I don't like spamming talk on people's talk page, except 73's. --User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig 23:10, 9 July 2007 (BST)

I was thinking of doing a Vista, and turning my talkpage into an area of general discussion. with a slight difference, that being, comments are not allowed to be sane.--Seventythree 15:34, 11 July 2007 (BST)

I think you succeeded in that already.--User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig 15:58, 11 July 2007 (BST)

Well, are you going to put it to a vote, or wot? -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 13:53, 13 July 2007 (BST)

I think the problem is that the consensus and participants have shifted so much that nobody feels obligated. I'm not sure if you're talking to me, Toejam or any of the others.-- Vista  +1  01:17, 15 July 2007 (BST)

Oh, was talking to anyone really. I'm sick of having to decide whether to strike non author re's, when it seems obvious that hardly anyone else supports the policy, or can be arsed enforcing it -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 01:28, 15 July 2007 (BST)

Correct me If i'm wrong, but moderators are the ones that will be striking non author RE's Right? ANd they have to be either proven to be fair, just or reasonable people, and face some form of revewiw every now and then right? SO why not have a vote for Let Moderatos use their common sense in removing Non Author RE's. That way, Mods can continue to remove offensive, silly, dumb or just plain off topic RE's and allow the sensible well thought out ones to go through.--Seventythree 01:35, 15 July 2007 (BST)

A growing consensus that non-author RE's should be allowed?

Okay, so a discussion between a few people doesn't represent a consensus, but should there be an amendment to the rules put up for voting? 'arm. 16:02, 22 July 2007 (BST)

There really should be something done... because either way people are doing it regardless. Enforce it or change it --Ryiis 21:33, 24 July 2007 (BST)

Here... hopefully we can make a positive change... --Ryiis

Discussion

Ryiis' Comments

A lot of the reasoning for this Motion of Policy Change has stemmed from the countless non-author REs that have been cropping up, and a small discussion on the Necrotic Bite Discussion page.

The part about the original author being able to delete non-author REs, without having to move it to the discussion page is taken from Necrotic Bite Discussion page. Here, it is suggested that if the non-author who REd wants the comments to be read, it is up to that individual to move it to the suggestion's discussion page, which I agree with.

"I think just saying "an author may delete non-author replies AND responses to those replies" is good enough. Wiki folks have some sort of fetish about not deleting stuff, it seems- pheh, its just words about a game! _. ^. _{. swiers} 02:27, 21 July 2007 (BST)

That seems sensible, because if either of them still want the REs to be shown, they can retrieve them from the history and put them on the talk page. 'arm. 16:49, 21 July 2007 (BST)"

If a policy isn't being enforced, then it should be changed to a policy that people agree on. Otherwise, without consistency, we are supporting Wiki Drama.

Armareum's Comments

• I think you got this policy just right. I do suggest a slight rephrasing through:

Comments

• RE may be used to comment on a vote. REs are restricted to the original author, with non-author REs allowed only under certain circumstances (see below). The voter may then RE the comment.

• REing every kill vote is considered abuse of the RE comment. A RE does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the RE comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.

• Non-author REs may only point out mathematical, factual or logical errors that may persuade/dissuade a Keep vote. It is expected that all RE comments be as short as possible. Only one non-author RE is allowed per comment and per non-author. Illegal Non-author REs will be deleted by a sysop.

• The original author may replace non-author REs (and subsequent replies) with their own REs, and is not required to move the non-author REs to the suggestion’s talk page. (An exception applies to Notes added by sysops - these may not be moved or deleted.)

• That's it. But I've probably used bold to much. 'arm. 23:47, 24 July 2007 (BST)

No, that looks good, and your changes help to break it up a bit more instead of being a "wall-of-text". I have made changes to the Motion - with some grammar corrections. Thank you Arm! --Ryiis 00:19, 25 July 2007 (BST)

In response to Swiers' comment, and the fact that you've adopted my alteration, I suggest the ^above^. The last bullet point is unnecessary, as no-one is allowed to edit anyone else comments anyway. I added an 'exception' to the deletions/control bullet point. 'arm. 14:25, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Okay, I've made another amendment, taking into account what boxy said. 'arm. 03:31, 27 July 2007 (BST)

I have updated the Motion to reflect the most recent requests (well, basically your amendments Armareum) for change. Anything else, or should I put this to a vote? --Ryiis 14:58, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Personally I think it's non-ambiguously phrased, and ready for voting. 'arm. 17:11, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Swiers' Comments

Looks good to me. However, I see no reason to limit factual corrections to commenting on errors that "may prevent Keep votes". If a factual error PROMOTES a keep vote, that is just as bad. Just allow commenting on error, subject to arbitrary author edit. I do think non-authors should be restricted to one comment at a time, though; that both removes the need for the "reply to every kill is abuse" clause, AND allows such response when there is only one or two kill votes (which is pretty clearly not abuse). _. ^. _{. swiers} 00:23, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Persuade is synonymous with “promotes”, as dissuade is synonymous with “prevents”. My reasoing for this is that non-author REs shouldn't just pop out of nowhere, but be there for a reason - specifically if it would prevent or promote the keeping of a suggestion. However, I do agree with you on the bit about "reply to every kill is abuse" clause where there is only one or two kill votes. I'll think on how to word that. --Ryiis 00:35, 25 July 2007 (BST)

boxy's comments

The original author has full control over replies is putting a bit too much emphasis on the suggestor, I think. It should be clear that other users (sysops at least) can remove frivolous Re's -- boxy ^{T Nuts block it! DA} 14:48, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I made a suggested change, based on what you've said. What do you think? 'arm. 03:32, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Well I'd rather have it open to anyone to remove illegal re's, but whatever. Let's get this over with :) -- boxy ^{T Nuts block it! DA} 08:02, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Leaving it to sysops to act as mods in non-author RE cases will probably create less drama. All it needs is a difference of opinion on one non-author RE and you get edit-wars and drama. It's the exceptions that prove determine the rules. Maybe. 'arm. 09:30, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Sysops arn't immune from drama ;) But anywho, whatever you feel is best. Let's just get this under voting. Can I suggest all this discussion gets moved up the page, and just leave a clear outline of the policy being voted on? -- boxy ^{T Nuts block it! DA} 12:52, 28 July 2007 (BST)

Discussion on Votes

Well, I don't want to start REing people's votes on this motion, but they do make me want to say something. Some votes confuse me because it reads like they don't actually understand the change that is proposed. Other's make me laugh because I haven't even seen them vote for at least the past month! 'arm. 01:05, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Yes, I have a couple things to say as well:

The talk page is for extended converstation about a vote, rather than a simple correction in math or logic. If someone is using a fallacy, then it would be better to point it out there on the spot, rather than forcing people to check a whole other page when a simple sentence would have done.

It is about clarifying quickly, rather than letting several votes go by that are never going to be changed because some never come back to the suggestion... a problem in-and-of-itself, but I can't change that. That means that a perfectly good suggestion could be sent to Peer Rejected, based on wrong, misunderstood, or miscalculated information.

As well, if people are ignoring the rule... then why ignore the fact that people are ignoring the rule? Bloody well fix it! The talk page is for extended conversation - not for a simple correction. --Ryiis 05:47, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Ironically, we are on the 'talk page' now, and it's unlikely that any of the voters that I'm referring to below will see this and respond to any of it. 'arm. 06:08, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Yes but there is another issue there too. You may be the one who is wrong and if you are correcting a voter and wrong someone else will/can Re you to correct you. It WILL cause problems.--User:Karek/sig 08:03, 31 July 2007 (BST)

And then it turns into a discussion that should be taken to the talk page. If they still want to highlight the factual 'controversy', they could put: "There is a debate on the factual content of this comment that has been moved to the talk page", or something similar. You could argue that EVERY non-author RE should do that, but since every suggestion has it's own page now, there is no need to keep the rule that we currently have. It's an anachronism and the rules should be updated to reflect current usage. 'arm. 03:07, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Then do it with the first correction. You're just trying to push back the requirement to "take it to the talk page" one notch. I'm seriously surprised that so many people support the current system of banning non author re's... every time I've defended it here I've been pretty much on my lonesome. But so be it, I'll be taking all non-author re's, that I see, out from here on in (if this fails, as seems to be on the cards), and encouraging others to do it as well (you don't need to be a sysops) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:13 3 August 2007 (BST)

Yeah - non-author res just promote Suggestions page drama. It's bad enough that the person making the suggestion can't cope with Kill or Spam votes being attached to their baby, without every Tom, Dick and Harry joining in. Some people are just "last word" whores, and anything that stops them from driveling all over my reality is a good thing. "Take it to the talk page". Indeed. --Funt Solo 10:32, 15 October 2007 (BST)

Category:Removed Suggestions

I created this category for use with removed suggestions, so they can still be found unsigned

And I added it to the template, so you don't have to put it in manually. Also, there are now templates for peer reviewed, undecided and rejected suggestions. All are placed into the respective categories... however if they need to go into further categories, you'll have to do that manually -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 06:54, 20 May 2007 (BST)

For those who've done real work on the suggestions system

Theres now a template that you can use to show that you've contributed to it. {{SW}} - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 06:50, 24 April 2007 (GMT)}

	Suggestions Worker
	This user sorted through peoples bile to find the gems.

Maybe it should read "Suggestions Slave"?--SporeSore 14:03, 18 May 2007 (BST)

I contest for suggestions slave XD --JudeMaverick ^{W! TJ! Talk Zzz... P!} 09:40, 21 May 2007 (BST)

Policy Votes

Spupe

Motion put to vote by --ShadowScope 21:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)--Discussion above

Motion Withdrawn due to overwhelming rejection. Voting CLOSED--ShadowScope 03:31, 25 September 2007 (BST)

What starts off as a joke I think should become a legit vote. It makes sense. A suggestion is both "spam"-worthy as well as "dupe"-worthy. So, why not? If someone votes Spupe, then that means that there is a Dupe vote then it counts as a Dupe vote. But if there is no Dupe vote, then it defaults to a Spam Vote.

While it is true that if a suggestion is not 'dupe-worthy', then that means that they can come back and edit their vote. But many people only vote once on a suggestion and does not want to actually deal with checking the wiki all the time. Therefore, this vote is only useful for ease as well as make sure that votes counts.

Voting

Yes

1. Author's vote, to ensure no spamination.--ShadowScope 21:50, 24 September 2007 (BST)
2. Hells yes.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:42, 24 September 2007 (BST)

No

1. I don't know who first started voting Spupe, but until someone corrects me I'll claim I did, narrowly beating Steakfish. I'm pretty sure it's already a legitimate vote, I've never had anyone query me for using it. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 22:09, 24 September 2007 (BST)

   From my interpertion of the rules, if someone votes Dupe, then if there are no valid Dupe links, then the vote is not counted. And anything that is not preface by "Dupe" is merely seen as a Spam, so your vote was counted only as a Spam, and won't count as a Dupe at all. The main goal of this rule is to modify it to allow this new vote to be counted offically.--ShadowScope 22:17, 24 September 2007 (BST)

2. Er hahaha. Spam/Dupe is fine although I might use "Spupe" every once and a while.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:12, 24 September 2007 (BST)
3. As Matthew --~~~~ [talk] 22:34, 24 September 2007 (BST)
4. Sounds dirty...--Someguy5031 23:09, 24 September 2007 (BST)
5. As Duke. 'arm. 23:12, 24 September 2007 (BST)
6. Voting spam is rude anyhow. Don't encourage it. --Pgunn 23:33, 24 September 2007 (BST)

   When a Spam vote is correctly used, it is no more rude than voting Kill or Dupe. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 23:36, 24 September 2007 (BST)

7. For the record, Pavluk DID beat me to the first ever "Spupe" vote (at least, we're assuming it was the first). I got an editing conflict when I tried to post my vote, and it was his "Spupe" vote that caused it. Funny how we both came up with the idea of "Spupe" on the same suggestion and at the exact same time (it was a really miserable suggestion, though, so maybe it was inevitable). He got his timestamp in before me, though, so he deserves the credit. I don't really care how my (or anyone else's) "Spupe" votes get tallied, since when people start "Spuping," the suggestion is almost certain to die anyway. --Steakfish 02:57, 25 September 2007 (BST)

Spam

1. You can't be serious. We have the same section for Spam/Dupe votes, so why don't you try imputing "Spam/Dupe" as your vote? Far better than "Spupe" and doesn't need interpretation. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:05, 24 September 2007 (BST)
2. As Matthew. Sockem 22:12, 24 September 2007 (BST)
3. As matthew. Ironic, nuh? --WanYao 22:44, 24 September 2007 (BST)
4. Unneeded.--Karek^maps?! 23:20, 24 September 2007 (BST)
5. Spupe. That's just ridiculous --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:39, 24 September 2007 (BST)
6. Spupe makes me want to eat babies. As MatthewFarenheit.--Wooty 00:24, 25 September 2007 (BST)

   Any perceived side-effects of Spupe^TM are entirely coincidental and not the fault of Spupe Foods Ltd. --Pavluk ^{A! E!}

   Now we finally know who supllies McDonalds ingredients.--Wooty

Motion for Policy Change regarding Non-Author Replies

Motion not passed. Voting CLOSED  Swiers 22:53, 11 August 2007 (BST)

This motion is put forward, with the intent to alter an existing policy, or existing policies. --Ryiis 22:35, 24 July 2007 (BST)

Motion put to vote by Ryiis 18:19, 28 July 2007 (BST) -- find discussion here

Current Policy:

Comments

• Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.

Suggested Policy Change:

Comments

• RE may be used to comment on a vote. REs are restricted to the original author, with non-author REs allowed only under certain circumstances (see below). The voter may then RE the comment.

• REing every kill vote is considered abuse of the RE comment. A RE does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the RE comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.

• Non-author REs may only point out mathematical, factual or logical errors that may persuade/dissuade a Keep vote. It is expected that all RE comments be as short as possible. Only one non-author RE is allowed per comment and per non-author. Illegal Non-author REs will be deleted by a sysop.

• The original author may replace non-author REs (and subsequent replies) with their own REs, and is not required to move the non-author REs to the suggestion’s talk page. (An exception applies to Notes added by sysops - these may not be moved or deleted.)

Voting

Yes

1. Yes - Author vote --Ryiis 18:19, 28 July 2007 (BST)
2. Yes - [Co-]author vote :P. 'arm. 20:44, 28 July 2007 (BST)
3. Yes - Would make open conversation easier. The original purpose of the limitation was to keep the voting page clean, but now each suggestion has its own page, so this won't cause problems. h 04:14, 29 July 2007 (BST)
4. Yes - --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 11:29, 29 July 2007 (BST)
5. Yes -- i dont see the harm in passing this.--User:Blood Panther/Sig 22:41, 29 July 2007 (BST)
6. Yes - The current rules were preventing me from pointing out misunderstandings in voting (and no one reads the talk pages besides the author.) User:Vault/Sig 03:43, 30 July 2007 (BST)
7. Yes - As above.--Seventythree 10:23, 30 July 2007 (BST)
8. Yes - a small improvement.-- Vista  +1  23:19, 30 July 2007 (BST)
9. Yes - As Swiers. --Thelightguy 01:18, 31 July 2007 (BST)
10. Yes - I think this revision is fine. --User:Dux Ducis/sig 10:16, 2 August 2007 (BST)
11. Yes - AYE! I love this one, it's a problem I have every time I look here. Nalikill 02:39, 5 August 2007 (BST)
12. Yes - This should make the wiki less abrasive. Grand. Sir Fred of Etruria 03:41, 10 August 2007 (BST)

No

1. No - Don't know what the point of voting on this is but nonauthor REs should only be allowed to direct people to the talk page because this pretty mugh is exactly what that page is for.--User:Karek/sig 20:57, 28 July 2007 (BST)
2. No - I don't understand the need to squelch conversation.--Jorm 03:08, 29 July 2007 (BST)
3. No - An author can attend to CNR cases on his own suggestion just fine if he wants/cares to. Allowing non-author REs will become a mayor problem when it comes to judge what is a "necessary" non-author RE and what isn't, and the availability of Sysops that want to take care of the removal job. Then, I don't want to be warning/banning a guy for non-author REing "in a way the policy barely didn't intend to allow", the same I don't want to do that for any other minnor offenses if possible. In resume: this opens the possibility of multiple petty A/VB cases opened against wiki users (mostly those that many users want screwed, like MrAushvitz in the past or Finnis Valorum now), the same we regularly get every time some guys don't agree on the suburb's pages.
   About the roots of this change: This is based on a premise that states that every clarification must be done ASAP and every voting user has to completely understand the whole picture before voting on a suggestion. This isn't true neither necessary... maybe it's desirable but not necessary at all. --User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature 07:13, 29 July 2007 (BST)
4. As above.--ShadowScope 18:37, 29 July 2007 (BST)
5. No - ditto ----Sexualharrison ^{MR• ה •T} 23:57, 29 July 2007 (BST)
6. No many people ignore the rule and often for good reason, however now that there is a talk page for every suggestion a better plan may be to allow anyone to enter a "RE" consisting of a brief sentence to say something like "A note regarding this vote/suggestion has been placed on the talk page under a heading 'Vote #'" if used universally it would probably work a lot better than this! --Honestmistake 00:53, 30 July 2007 (BST)
7. No - Who cares how people reply. Learn how to read and you won't need to require smaller sentences.--Jaysonequalsyayy 04:35, 30 July 2007 (BST)
8. No - As Honestmistake. --Midianian 13:01, 30 July 2007 (BST)
9. No - Unnecessarily bureaucratic. As long as edits are signed, there should be no real confusion --Crabappleslegalteam 13:25, 30 July 2007 (BST)
10. As Matt. --User:Axe Hack/Sig 00:34, 31 July 2007 (BST)
11. No Whatever the current system is, it works fine. as Matt.--Wooty 20:26, 31 July 2007 (BST)
12. No - as HonestMistake --Funt Solo 09:18, 6 August 2007 (BST)
13. No - Just put a link to the talk page. --User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig 22:04, 11 August 2007 (BST)

    No as per the 1st three voters. --WanYao 22:48, 24 September 2007 (BST) - voting closed, vote struck. 'arm. 23:07, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Spam