Template talk:stuffinstructions - Revision history

Stux: /**/Recategorize

2023-12-28T14:54:54Z

: Recategorize

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 28 December 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:
	What if a use accidentally votes for and against an item? Would the latest or the original vote be considered valid? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)		What if a use accidentally votes for and against an item? Would the latest or the original vote be considered valid? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	:I think the last vote should be omitted (as it was the one to be accidental) and a note on the user's talk telling him about it. There have already been a few cases that this happened. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)		:I think the last vote should be omitted (as it was the one to be accidental) and a note on the user's talk telling him about it. There have already been a few cases that this happened. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Recategorize ==
		+
		+	I am in the process of recategorizing STUFF pages and ran into this template and other pages. This template is protected so I am unable to edit the category. I'd like to move this to the [[:Category:STUFF Help\|STUFF Help]] category and also add it to the [[:Category:STUFF Templates\|STUFF Templates]] category. The following pages are also protected and should be moved to the [[:Category:STUFF Help\|STUFF Help]] category:
		+	* [[HRWiki:STUFF/Newfact]]
		+	* [[HRWiki:STUFF/Newpage]]
		+	* [[HRWiki:STUFF/Revision]]
		+	* [[HRWiki:STUFF/Source]]
		+
		+	I would like to request that either the protection level for these pages be reduced to autoconfirmed or the pages are moved to those categories.
		+
		+	Thanks, --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Elcool: /* Revised Bottom */ reply

2008-03-09T07:10:14Z

Revised Bottom: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:10, 9 March 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:

	What if a use accidentally votes for and against an item? Would the latest or the original vote be considered valid? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)		What if a use accidentally votes for and against an item? Would the latest or the original vote be considered valid? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
		+	:I think the last vote should be omitted (as it was the one to be accidental) and a note on the user's talk telling him about it. There have already been a few cases that this happened. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Qermaq: /* Revised Bottom */ question

2008-03-09T06:21:52Z

Revised Bottom: question

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 9 March 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:I think the current wording was discussed at least in part at [[HRWiki talk:STUFF#Stuff Voting Procedure]]. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)		:I think the current wording was discussed at least in part at [[HRWiki talk:STUFF#Stuff Voting Procedure]]. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Oh boy, I didn't want to re-open that discussion and suggest to change the rules. I simply noticed that the current wording is not as precise as it should be. For example, it confused me enough to first [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:STUFF/keep_cool&diff=prev&oldid=351759 delete two double votes and then put them back in again]. Now I know how it's meant to be, but I thought that I might not be the only one who's confused. {{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)		::Oh boy, I didn't want to re-open that discussion and suggest to change the rules. I simply noticed that the current wording is not as precise as it should be. For example, it confused me enough to first [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:STUFF/keep_cool&diff=prev&oldid=351759 delete two double votes and then put them back in again]. Now I know how it's meant to be, but I thought that I might not be the only one who's confused. {{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	What if a use accidentally votes for and against an item? Would the latest or the original vote be considered valid? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Loafing: /* Revised Bottom */ reply to tom

2006-08-02T06:04:30Z

Revised Bottom: reply to tom

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 2 August 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:I think the current wording was discussed at least in part at [[HRWiki talk:STUFF#Stuff Voting Procedure]]. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)		:I think the current wording was discussed at least in part at [[HRWiki talk:STUFF#Stuff Voting Procedure]]. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
		+	::Oh boy, I didn't want to re-open that discussion and suggest to change the rules. I simply noticed that the current wording is not as precise as it should be. For example, it confused me enough to first [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Template:STUFF/keep_cool&diff=prev&oldid=351759 delete two double votes and then put them back in again]. Now I know how it's meant to be, but I thought that I might not be the only one who's confused. {{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom: Add hopefully helpful link for Loafing.

2006-08-02T05:27:28Z

Add hopefully helpful link for Loafing.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:27, 2 August 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*You can accept either the proposed fact or one of the proposed revisions. If you accidentally cast more than one vote to accept, only the bottommost one will count.		*You can accept either the proposed fact or one of the proposed revisions. If you accidentally cast more than one vote to accept, only the bottommost one will count.
	I think this makes it much clearer.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)		I think this makes it much clearer.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think the current wording was discussed at least in part at [[HRWiki talk:STUFF#Stuff Voting Procedure]]. -- [[User:Tom\|Tom]] 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Loafing: Revised Bottom

2006-08-02T05:08:13Z

Revised Bottom

New page

== Revised Bottom ==

This bit from "Notes about voting" confused me today: "(You cannot accept more than one revision. Only your bottommost vote to accept will count.)" This technically means that one can vote for the proposed fact <i>and</i> one of the proposed revisions. I suggest that it's changed to this:
*You can accept either the proposed fact or one of the proposed revisions. If you accidentally cast more than one vote to accept, only the bottommost one will count.
I think this makes it much clearer.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)