Suggestion talk:20070719 Necrotic Bite 2.0

Non-author Re's

Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. ------ because I'm fairly sure that 'arm can defend himself. Not trying to be a dick, but can we keep it consistent? --Ryiis 06:37, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Never would even had realised about that Kill vote and REs if it wasn't for your comment. I think Vista has argued (on a discussion about this) that non-author REs are appropriate if they are pointing our errors in people's comments. A great example would be if someone had made a mathematical error - it wouldn't be good it that error successfully convinced others to also vote Kill/Spam, or even Keep! Vista did as much on this suggestion. So no big deal in this case. 'arm. 17:10, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Yes and it was agreed to not be accepted, talk page is for that. In most cases nonauthor Res are fine, if it is wanted by the commenter, otherwise I'd say put it on the talk page cause they will see it most likely or they won't even see the RE.--Karek^maps?! 17:13, 20 July 2007 (BST)

My reading of the page doesn't find that it comes to a conclusion either way. Boxy and Vista both have good points. And I was showing where Vista did actually point out an error - if that's not a precedent, I don't know what is. 'arm. 17:18, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Fair enough, I'm just going by the voting template specifically rather than any commentary on the subject. More than anything, I just wanted to make sure that the replies to the comments were being responded to in a way that was in the spirit of your suggestion - thusly being responded to by you, the author, specifically --Ryiis 22:56, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Meh, my bad. Just thought I'd point out to everyone that he skimmed through, without writing a whole 'nother paragraph, like Swiers. Some people just don't wanna read everything, and tend to pick out the smaller parts. No real harm though, right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:05, 20 July 2007 (BST)

It's all good I'm sure. If 'arm didn't take offense, and he feels that the non-author re's were fine, then I am good with it too :-) --Ryiis 23:22, 20 July 2007 (BST)

No offence caused, Swiers was pointing out a factual error. Possibly you could argue that Suicidalangel's RE was redundant, though. But no harm caused as the vote has gone now :). 'arm. 01:03, 21 July 2007 (BST)

It does seem rather silly that votes are the one single place (excepting maybe user pages) on the wiki where people (aside from the pages original author) are not allowed to point out blatant factual errors in a direct manner. If non-author re's are never allowed, there should still be a better mechanism than using the talk page. Othertimes I've contacted the voter directly, but that one was really just to big an error, and to likely to create an emotional vote swing based on false information for me to let it pass until 'arm found it. Maybe voters could be granted a SINGLE reply per suggestion, to be used only to point out factual errors, and open to removal by the suggestion author? _. ^. _{. swiers} 23:38, 20 July 2007 (BST)

As far as I can tell, that was exactly what Vista was arguing for. Boxy's concerns were that if there had already been a reply, the author would have to move the re:s to the talk page in order to put a comment of their own on the page. Or a sysop might end up moving them. However, I think that'd be a fairly rare occasion. I, personally, agree with non-author REs in order to point out factual errors. If a non-author RE, then it'd be good practise to put something on the user's talk page too? 'arm. 01:03, 21 July 2007 (BST)

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)

True, which makes the whole "never delete anything" de-facto policy we have (in a general sense, and especially in this case) all that much stranger. _. ^. _{. swiers} 18:16, 21 July 2007 (BST)

46 voters

46 voters??!! someonve should check if there are alts because we don't get so much people voting in other suggestions... --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 21:35, 30 July 2007 (BST)

It was on the talk page for a LONG time, which generated interest previous to it being submitted for voting. In effect, its getting 4-6 weeks worth of votes, not just the normal 2. __Swiers___ 22:02, 30 July 2007 (BST)

The few voters I didn't previously know were made aware of the suggestion via an RRF chatroom after karek saw 3 NO votes in quick succession. I also pointed it out to people in my group Extinction, which gave it 4 more keep votes. 'arm. 03:13, 31 July 2007 (BST)

That and this is the third/fourth mabey even the fifth time this is up for vote after alterations. This is one of those suggestions people have been working to make right and lots of people showed interest in the past versions of this too.--Karek^maps?! 04:47, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Didn't I take it from Monstah after he had 3 tries at a more powerful bite? Though his seemed to be trying to make Powered hospitals essential, IIRC. 'arm. 04:50, 31 July 2007 (BST)

You know, I actually liked that part and feel it hurts a little not having it but I know it will never pass without it because survivors want to be able to hold more territory with small numbers. Too bad, it would have made hospitals important for once.--Karek^maps?! 08:08, 31 July 2007 (BST)