| Revision as of 13:19, 17 September 2006 editCameoAppearance (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users753 edits →WP:CHILD← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:00, 21 September 2006 edit undoHerostratus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,252 edits Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacyNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| ::There aren't really any formal rules about how long something has to be discussed (indeed, I've seen proposals closed after a day or two, usually on grounds that "nobody likes this except the proposer"). The thing is that there isn't really discussion about wording or specifics, but instead there is a significant number of people who object to the very principle. To implement a proposal, you'd have a strong majority of opinions supporting it; that is simply not the case here. ] 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | ::There aren't really any formal rules about how long something has to be discussed (indeed, I've seen proposals closed after a day or two, usually on grounds that "nobody likes this except the proposer"). The thing is that there isn't really discussion about wording or specifics, but instead there is a significant number of people who object to the very principle. To implement a proposal, you'd have a strong majority of opinions supporting it; that is simply not the case here. ] 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::If you say so, I'm just saying that it doesn't really seem to have been actively rejected. I'm not as aware of the criteria for closing as you are. ] ] 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | :::If you say so, I'm just saying that it doesn't really seem to have been actively rejected. I'm not as aware of the criteria for closing as you are. ] ] 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. You contributed to the discussion at ]. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal ''']''', thanks. ] 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:00, 21 September 2006
Image copyright problem with Image:Down-SimianCrease.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Down-SimianCrease.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
love ur username
cute! btw i looked at ur page and my fingers starting itching to align ur userboxes across the middle of ur page, instead of going down in a long column, but lots of people don't appreciate having their pages touched, so i'm not going to do anything. *twitches frantically* riana 11:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
AFD
As an inclusionist, please review Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side.
Yay
Hooray for the userbox Macarion 00:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thanks for Brat!
Hi there. I've been moving the article on Shade's Children slowly forward, and wanted to give you a quick thanks for adding the description of Brat, a minor character about whom I had nearly completely forgotten. :p It really helps! :) Have a nice day (or night, I don't remember the time conversion from Montreal to Vancouver.)
Nihiltres 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahoy!
I saw you on JONJONAUG's page, and thought I'd say 'Hi'. Why am I not surprised you mention grammar edits as something you do? --AlmostReadytoFly 21:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for improving my userbox. --Gray Porpoise 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:CHILD
There are a number of supporters for WP:CHILD, but by its talk page it's obvious there's at least as many opposers. That means that yes, there is a lack of consensus for this proposal, and per WP:POL, "a rejected proposal is any proposal that does not have consensual support, regardless of whether or not discussion is still ongoing". Unless consensus actually supports a proposal, the proposal fails (which, incidentally, happens to about 80% of proposals on the Wiki).
On a Wiki, changes do not generally have to be proposed; what I simply did was note the fact that there is no consensus for this proposal (nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future) and made a note of such on its page. >Radiant< 10:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that, but what I saw didn't seem to be outright rejection so much as either the process of discussion or an inability to decide. Now, again, I don't know how long discussion has to go on for such a thing to be decided, but this thing hasn't even been around for a full month. Surely it's reasonable to give the community more time for debate? CameoAppearance 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- There aren't really any formal rules about how long something has to be discussed (indeed, I've seen proposals closed after a day or two, usually on grounds that "nobody likes this except the proposer"). The thing is that there isn't really discussion about wording or specifics, but instead there is a significant number of people who object to the very principle. To implement a proposal, you'd have a strong majority of opinions supporting it; that is simply not the case here. >Radiant< 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you say so, I'm just saying that it doesn't really seem to have been actively rejected. I'm not as aware of the criteria for closing as you are. CameoAppearance 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- There aren't really any formal rules about how long something has to be discussed (indeed, I've seen proposals closed after a day or two, usually on grounds that "nobody likes this except the proposer"). The thing is that there isn't really discussion about wording or specifics, but instead there is a significant number of people who object to the very principle. To implement a proposal, you'd have a strong majority of opinions supporting it; that is simply not the case here. >Radiant< 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy
Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)