Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:22Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is the complicated template system really necessary for us yet? We're a small wiki and we all pretty much know each other. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 21:33, 16 December 2005 (EST)		Is the complicated template system really necessary for us yet? We're a small wiki and we all pretty much know each other. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 21:33, 16 December 2005 (EST)

	: Yeah. I'm already confused... Where are the questions for all condidates, or are they yet to be imported? I'm all for building things to be future-proof, but we voted on the Spoiler Policy without templates and that turned out okay. I am admittedly not familiar with this event, but is there some reason we can't vote on these the same way? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 01:36, 17 December 2005 (EST)		: Yeah. I'm already confused... Where are the questions for all condidates, or are they yet to be imported? I'm all for building things to be future-proof, but we voted on the Spoiler Policy without templates and that turned out okay. I am admittedly not familiar with this event, but is there some reason we can't vote on these the same way? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 01:36, 17 December 2005 (EST)
Line 30:		Line 30:
	: I like the sentiment. However, what would such "assistant" admins do? What privs would they have? What responsibilities? Or is this more of an honorific for Meritous Service to the Wiki? I'd not be opposed to that latter, but think being perfectly clear is best. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:08, 27 December 2005 (EST)		: I like the sentiment. However, what would such "assistant" admins do? What privs would they have? What responsibilities? Or is this more of an honorific for Meritous Service to the Wiki? I'd not be opposed to that latter, but think being perfectly clear is best. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:08, 27 December 2005 (EST)

	::I think it's a deeply silly idea. Although we may have favored areas of contribution, we do not have "territory" here, and I think that introducing the concept would be needlessly factionalizing. IMO, Steelviper is well-qualified for adminship anyway. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 02:37, 28 December 2005 (EST)		::I think it's a deeply silly idea. Although we may have favored areas of contribution, we do not have "territory" here, and I think that introducing the concept would be needlessly factionalizing. IMO, Steelviper is well-qualified for adminship anyway. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 02:37, 28 December 2005 (EST)

	:::All, very good points. Hey it was worth a shot. Now... how about making the wiki's background color change at random? Ya know. Like a strobe light? ;) --[[User:Watcher\|Watcher]] 03:19, 28 December 2005 (EST)		:::All, very good points. Hey it was worth a shot. Now... how about making the wiki's background color change at random? Ya know. Like a strobe light? ;) --[[User:Watcher\|Watcher]] 03:19, 28 December 2005 (EST)
Line 37:		Line 37:

	==Consolidate failed requests==		==Consolidate failed requests==
	I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	::That was my plan. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		::That was my plan. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* More admins needed? */ reply

2007-09-01T16:32:38Z

More admins needed?: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 1 September 2007
Line 56:		Line 56:
	I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)		I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
	:I think we have enough at the moment, and also enough for Season 4. It's true that some old-timers are inactive, but since then new admins were instated. I can see one more maybe, but not "a couple". With Mercifull, Catrope and me we also have good European coverage now. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)		:I think we have enough at the moment, and also enough for Season 4. It's true that some old-timers are inactive, but since then new admins were instated. I can see one more maybe, but not "a couple". With Mercifull, Catrope and me we also have good European coverage now. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
			:For now, I have to agree with Serenity. I have a feeling that some of the "inactive" admins will become active again once Razor and Season 4 hits. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 11:32, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Serenity: /* More admins needed? */

2007-09-01T16:09:07Z

More admins needed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 1 September 2007
Line 55:		Line 55:
	==More admins needed?==		==More admins needed?==
	I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)		I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
			:I think we have enough at the moment, and also enough for Season 4. It's true that some old-timers are inactive, but since then new admins were instated. I can see one more maybe, but not "a couple". With Mercifull, Catrope and me we also have good European coverage now. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

BklynBruzer at 16:05, 1 September 2007

2007-09-01T16:05:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 1 September 2007
Line 52:		Line 52:

	:I think the most common misconception about the process is that people think it's a vote. It's not. RFA's are used to find out what the consensus is. Yes, votes are involved in the process, but the comments are much more important. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 07:57, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:I think the most common misconception about the process is that people think it's a vote. It's not. RFA's are used to find out what the consensus is. Yes, votes are involved in the process, but the comments are much more important. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 07:57, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

			==More admins needed?==
			I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Steelviper: /* Contribution standard for RfA voting */ RFA thoughts

2006-08-03T12:57:55Z

Contribution standard for RfA voting: RFA thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 3 August 2006
Line 47:		Line 47:

	Shall we discuss it here or should I make a [[Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Contribution standard for RfA voting]]? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 01:39, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		Shall we discuss it here or should I make a [[Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Contribution standard for RfA voting]]? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 01:39, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
			:I'd say this is a fine location. Personally, I'm not sure if a contribution standard is necessary, for the very reason you mention above. The result of RFA's are at the Bureaucrat (Joe)'s discretion. You'll notice that there's no minimum support %, or any other standard written in stone. I trust that Joe weighs each opinion for what it is worth.

			:People get hung up on how many supports/opposes/neutrals there are but as I've said before, a well thought out comment or neutral can do more to convince me than any one word "vote". I welcome '''anybody's''' opinion, but it's easier for me to know what your opinion is if you actually write it out.

			:I think the most common misconception about the process is that people think it's a vote. It's not. RFA's are used to find out what the consensus is. Yes, votes are involved in the process, but the comments are much more important. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 07:57, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

CalculatinAvatar: /* Contribution standard for RfA voting */ I'm not sure if this should be on BW:TANK, so I'm starting it here.

2006-08-03T06:39:41Z

Contribution standard for RfA voting: I'm not sure if this should be on BW:TANK, so I'm starting it here.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 3 August 2006
Line 41:		Line 41:
	::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

			== Contribution standard for RfA voting ==

			I believe there should be a (quite low) contribution requirement to vote on RfA's. It should probably include some discretion on the part of the vote tallier (i.e. Joe) to guard against legalists.

			Shall we discuss it here or should I make a [[Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Contribution standard for RfA voting]]? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 01:39, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Consolidate failed requests */ reply

2006-06-30T13:47:20Z

Consolidate failed requests: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 30 June 2006
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
			: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

April Arcus: /* Consolidate failed requests */

2006-06-30T12:57:19Z

Consolidate failed requests

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 30 June 2006
Line 39:		Line 39:
	I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
			::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Mercifull: /* Consolidate failed requests */

2006-06-30T08:00:04Z

Consolidate failed requests

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:00, 30 June 2006
Line 38:		Line 38:
	==Consolidate failed requests==		==Consolidate failed requests==
	I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
			:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

April Arcus at 06:59, 30 June 2006

2006-06-30T06:59:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:59, 30 June 2006
Line 35:		Line 35:

	:::: Or we could also introduce a Random User Face-Stab "Bug". ;) --[[User:Day\|Day]] 04:17, 28 December 2005 (EST)		:::: Or we could also introduce a Random User Face-Stab "Bug". ;) --[[User:Day\|Day]] 04:17, 28 December 2005 (EST)

			==Consolidate failed requests==
			I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Is the complicated template system really necessary for us yet? We're a small wiki and we all pretty much know each other. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 21:33, 16 December 2005 (EST)		Is the complicated template system really necessary for us yet? We're a small wiki and we all pretty much know each other. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 21:33, 16 December 2005 (EST)

	: Yeah. I'm already confused... Where are the questions for all condidates, or are they yet to be imported? I'm all for building things to be future-proof, but we voted on the Spoiler Policy without templates and that turned out okay. I am admittedly not familiar with this event, but is there some reason we can't vote on these the same way? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 01:36, 17 December 2005 (EST)		: Yeah. I'm already confused... Where are the questions for all condidates, or are they yet to be imported? I'm all for building things to be future-proof, but we voted on the Spoiler Policy without templates and that turned out okay. I am admittedly not familiar with this event, but is there some reason we can't vote on these the same way? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 01:36, 17 December 2005 (EST)
Line 30:		Line 30:
	: I like the sentiment. However, what would such "assistant" admins do? What privs would they have? What responsibilities? Or is this more of an honorific for Meritous Service to the Wiki? I'd not be opposed to that latter, but think being perfectly clear is best. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:08, 27 December 2005 (EST)		: I like the sentiment. However, what would such "assistant" admins do? What privs would they have? What responsibilities? Or is this more of an honorific for Meritous Service to the Wiki? I'd not be opposed to that latter, but think being perfectly clear is best. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:08, 27 December 2005 (EST)

	::I think it's a deeply silly idea. Although we may have favored areas of contribution, we do not have "territory" here, and I think that introducing the concept would be needlessly factionalizing. IMO, Steelviper is well-qualified for adminship anyway. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 02:37, 28 December 2005 (EST)		::I think it's a deeply silly idea. Although we may have favored areas of contribution, we do not have "territory" here, and I think that introducing the concept would be needlessly factionalizing. IMO, Steelviper is well-qualified for adminship anyway. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 02:37, 28 December 2005 (EST)

	:::All, very good points. Hey it was worth a shot. Now... how about making the wiki's background color change at random? Ya know. Like a strobe light? ;) --[[User:Watcher\|Watcher]] 03:19, 28 December 2005 (EST)		:::All, very good points. Hey it was worth a shot. Now... how about making the wiki's background color change at random? Ya know. Like a strobe light? ;) --[[User:Watcher\|Watcher]] 03:19, 28 December 2005 (EST)
Line 37:		Line 37:

	==Consolidate failed requests==		==Consolidate failed requests==
	I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	::That was my plan. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		::That was my plan. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 1 September 2007
Line 56:		Line 56:
	I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)		I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer\|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
	:I think we have enough at the moment, and also enough for Season 4. It's true that some old-timers are inactive, but since then new admins were instated. I can see one more maybe, but not "a couple". With Mercifull, Catrope and me we also have good European coverage now. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)		:I think we have enough at the moment, and also enough for Season 4. It's true that some old-timers are inactive, but since then new admins were instated. I can see one more maybe, but not "a couple". With Mercifull, Catrope and me we also have good European coverage now. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 11:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
			:For now, I have to agree with Serenity. I have a feeling that some of the "inactive" admins will become active again once Razor and Season 4 hits. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 11:32, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 30 June 2006
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
			: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 30 June 2006
Line 39:		Line 39:
	I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
	:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)		:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
			::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)