Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:35, 19 March 2009

Revision as of 19:36, 19 March 2009

Line 313:

::::Autoformatting must be well-defined. If not, and the bare question "do you support autoformatting" receives a narrow majority, certain gadget-happy developers will develop something, claim it is autoformatting, and claim it is supported by the RfC. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

::::* I was expecting that the subject of bot removal of date links would have to wait because to pose such a question in the first RfC presupposes a particular outcome as to whether the community ''likes date links''. If the first RfC results go as I expect, we may not even need to have a second RfC on bot activity. As long as bot activity is arguably doing edits within the scope of MOSNUM and MOS guidelines, Lightmouse’s activities should be sufficiently regulated by the normal venues for such things.<p>We don’t have to have an RfC on ''everything'' just because there is a single editor willing to show up on the CapitalCapitol steps, pour gasoline on himself, and set himself alight. A nice round of applause is in order for the spectacle, but there is no need for pages to be locked down and admins to get so damned sick of a conflict that they want to issue across-the-board topic bans—and all because of a few editors (or one editor) are quick to reject every clear community consensus as a stacked-deck “gumint conspiracy.” <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

== Truth in advertising ==