237:
Part of the redesign I proposed was to move the comment section to the top. This certainly was not to move up the edit counts and statistics, it was to encourage its use for discussion. (Until recently, of course, it was much easier because we didn't have huge tables of edit counts, just a line, but
214:
Out of curiousity, Geni, what sort of comments are you thinking of that couldn't be covered in a reply to a support/oppose/neutral, or in a question to the candidate, or on the candidate's talk page, or on the rfa's talkpage? I understand what you mean about the current comments section, and I'm not
122:
Personally, I wouldn't move a comment without asking the commentor first, but I understand why someone moved your comment - it was LONG! Generally, you should use no more than a couple of lines explaining your support or oppose vote and elaborate further, if necessary, in the comments section. (You
189:
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
113:
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.
39:
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.
258:
I've used the comments section a couple of times to make comments. See the RfA for
Runcorn. If you put your comment at the bottom of the section it sits nicely directly above the support section, in the current design.
107:
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).
226:
things simular to nomination statements. Info that I think is important in a particular case. Basicialy where I want to say stuff while resevering judgement on the candidate.
175:
96:
32:
238:
now edit counts are on the talk page, so it should be easier.) Feel free to comment in the comments section; if you start doing it, hopefully others will also. --
182:
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.
215:
rejecting the idea of de-cluttering it; I just can't think of an example of a comment that doesn't already have a reasonable place (or two, or three.)
163:
LOL - Ok, thanks for the info. If there's a next time, I'll aim for brevity, and squeal if someone moves my comments without asking. Thanks again.
78:
I think it's not needed; it's not that long. You should ask a bureaucrat, since they are usually the ones to "manage" the RfA page (oh, wait, isn't
190:
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. --
104:
110:
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).
48:
They are not separate sections so as to not spam the TOC. IIRC, I've seen they changed to separate sections when the RfA gets
103:
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
21:
123:
could also say "See
Comment below".) Otherwise, long comments would clutter up the Support and Oppose sections.
132:
216:
191:
137:
127:
108:
64:
41:
239:
204:
164:
115:
251:
260:
198:
I believe there is a comment section, but like Tony said, alot of clutter is there.
199:
17:
83:
53:
227:
183:
111:
146:
246:
This is a consensus building excersize. You can drop all the sections
150:
95:
Question, please, on how to correctly add comments to an RfA ? (
153:
157:
79:
63:
So is it okay in R. Fiend's case as he asked for it? --
8:
250:comments! ;-) Use that section, folks!
105:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Zpb52
7:
28:
31:Comments as a separate section (
254:08:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
194:22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
186:22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
44:22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
263:06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
242:05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
230:02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
219:01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
209:22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
86:03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
67:22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
56:22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
278:
174:I want a comment section (
118:23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
167:02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
80:Cecropia a bureaucrat
269:
207:
202:
160:
143:
140:
135:
130:
277:
276:
272:
271:
270:
268:
267:
266:
205:
200:
180:
144:
138:
133:
128:
124:
101:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
275:
273:
265:
264:
244:
243:
234:
233:
232:
231:
221:
220:
211:
210:
179:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
100:
93:
92:
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
71:
70:
69:
68:
65:Celestianpower
58:
57:
42:Celestianpower
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
274:
262:
257:
256:
255:
253:
249:
241:
236:
235:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
213:
212:
208:
203:
197:
196:
195:
193:
187:
185:
177:
173:
166:
162:
161:
159:
155:
152:
148:
142:
141:
136:
131:
121:
120:
119:
117:
112:
109:
106:
98:
94:
85:
81:
77:
76:
75:
74:
73:
72:
66:
62:
61:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
46:
45:
43:
34:
30:
23:
19:
247:
245:
217:Picaroon9288
192:Tony Sidaway
188:
181:
126:
102:
49:
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
252:Kim Bruning
176:Archive 68
97:Archive 57
33:Archive 30
261:Tyrenius
156:@ 02:08
147:Thursday
52:long. --
20: |
240:Rory096
248:except
151:18 May
84:cesarb
54:cesarb
50:really
165:Sandy
129:Cuivi
116:Sandy
82:?) --
16:<
228:Geni
201:Yank
184:Geni
154:2006
206:sox
158:UTC
139:nen
149:,
145:,
40:--
178:)
134:é
125:—
99:)
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.