User talk:Acalamari/IWN
This is the talk page for the proposal. Please make sure you have read the proposal thoroughly before posting here. As I said on my past proposal, major changes to the proposal should be discussed here while minor changes do not need to be discussed at all. Acalamari 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am unsure what problem this would actually solve, as opposed to creating more process/red tape/bureaucracy. If we start warning people against making inappropriate warnings, we eventually have to warn people against inappropriately warning against appropriate warnings. I'm afraid this falls under WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed; this proposal, like my last one, is difficult; and this one could cause problems. Warnings seem to be a heavily controversial topic on Wikipedia. Acalamari 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with Radiant. I need to be convinced that inappropriate warnings is a serious problem before I'll support a proposal to do anything about it. If you showed a couple of diffs from AN/I, that might support the case for creating this noticeboard. YechielMan 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect wording
[edit]"...and prove whether they vandalized or not." is not right. It should be up to the person tagging them as a vandal to prove where they vandalised not the other way round. If I add {{Uw-test1}} to your talk page then it should be up to me to prove what I'm talking about. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I always thought it was up to both. If I was accused of vandalism, I thought it would be best for me to explain an edit that could be interpreted as vandalism. Acalamari 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you have a fairly new user who has 200 or so edits and they get a vandalism warning they shouldn't have to dig back to try and figure out which one it refers to. If the accuser will not provide a link to the supposed vandalism, then it should be treated as frivolous and ignored or removed. So far for the 13 March I have 102 edits. If someone leaves me a generic vandalism warning how can I guess which one it was they mean. Of course I would either ask them or just ignore it, but newer users may be upset and try and waste their time trying to find a edit that does not exist. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I actually hadn't thought about that; thanks for bringing this up. Now that I think about it, this proposal is barely any better than my last one. I should really come up with a proposal that will help Wikipedia, not one that I think will help. Acalamari 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the whole pproposal has to go but that section/sentence needs some thinking about. If I can think on a way to re-write it I'll let you know tomorrow. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll think about it too. Acalamari 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the whole pproposal has to go but that section/sentence needs some thinking about. If I can think on a way to re-write it I'll let you know tomorrow. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I actually hadn't thought about that; thanks for bringing this up. Now that I think about it, this proposal is barely any better than my last one. I should really come up with a proposal that will help Wikipedia, not one that I think will help. Acalamari 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you have a fairly new user who has 200 or so edits and they get a vandalism warning they shouldn't have to dig back to try and figure out which one it refers to. If the accuser will not provide a link to the supposed vandalism, then it should be treated as frivolous and ignored or removed. So far for the 13 March I have 102 edits. If someone leaves me a generic vandalism warning how can I guess which one it was they mean. Of course I would either ask them or just ignore it, but newer users may be upset and try and waste their time trying to find a edit that does not exist. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)