I just wish to enquire, is there any reason why the comments part (when an RfA gets long) shouldn't be a separate section? On R. Fiend's RfA, he changed it so that it was and Ceropia changed it back. Just wish for clarification, thank you. -- Celestianpower hab 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to interject this dumb question here, but I am still fairly new, and don't know where else to ask it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zpb52 contains numerous comments in the voting sections. I commented a strong oppose in a previous RfA, which another editor moved (away from my vote, and to the bottom of the page, under comments). [1] The follow-up I received on my concerns was after the RfA closed (from an editor who took difference with me on my talk page). [2] For the future, I would like to understand the correct usage of comments supporting one's vote: should my comments have been moved to the bottom by another editor, or do comments belong in the voting section, as in the RfA referenced above? TIA. Sandy 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So I can comment without supporting/opposeing or being neutral. Like I can on AFD. The current one appears to be for the various edit count things only. Geni 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. While we're at it, could we agree to remove all that clutter such as stats and q&a to the end? This is about whether the guy is fit to be an admin, not the output of some bloody computer program and not what he has to say about himself on the hustings. You actually have to look at his edits in detail, there's probably no other way, and putting all that clutter at the front gives completely the wrong impression. -- Tony Sidaway 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a consensus building excersize. You can drop all the sections except comments! ;-) Use that section, folks! Kim Bruning 08:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wish to enquire, is there any reason why the comments part (when an RfA gets long) shouldn't be a separate section? On R. Fiend's RfA, he changed it so that it was and Ceropia changed it back. Just wish for clarification, thank you. -- Celestianpower hab 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to interject this dumb question here, but I am still fairly new, and don't know where else to ask it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zpb52 contains numerous comments in the voting sections. I commented a strong oppose in a previous RfA, which another editor moved (away from my vote, and to the bottom of the page, under comments). [1] The follow-up I received on my concerns was after the RfA closed (from an editor who took difference with me on my talk page). [2] For the future, I would like to understand the correct usage of comments supporting one's vote: should my comments have been moved to the bottom by another editor, or do comments belong in the voting section, as in the RfA referenced above? TIA. Sandy 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So I can comment without supporting/opposeing or being neutral. Like I can on AFD. The current one appears to be for the various edit count things only. Geni 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. While we're at it, could we agree to remove all that clutter such as stats and q&a to the end? This is about whether the guy is fit to be an admin, not the output of some bloody computer program and not what he has to say about himself on the hustings. You actually have to look at his edits in detail, there's probably no other way, and putting all that clutter at the front gives completely the wrong impression. -- Tony Sidaway 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a consensus building excersize. You can drop all the sections except comments! ;-) Use that section, folks! Kim Bruning 08:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)