Talk:Stewards/elections 2011/votes/Bennylin
Comment and full context about Kenrick's points:
- About the id.wp logo, Kenrick failed to mention the discussion about it. (The translation of the discussion about logo changing)
- About the "changing things on the Main page", which was a very trivial matter, was based my decision to change the word "sunting" to "s" in the Main Page. Two months later, an RfD was raised to change back one part of if, in which Kenrick failed to mention the discussion here (point #7 & #11). Mimihitam changed back the part, and continued by changing the whole. Thus I reverted his last edit. Then Mimihitam changed it back, and I have been silent to avoid any disruption over so small an issue. Below are the events that led to it:
- One of the growing concern regarding id.wp's Main Page was that the editable inclusion (FA, "In the News", "Did you know", "On this day", and Featured picture) was (and still) editable by anyone, including vandals. Kenrick, as expressed in the talk page entry #7, proposed to delete the link to edit the "In the News" block. To accomodate that concern while not eliminating the link altogether, I changed the word "sunting" to a letter "s", and for consistency, apply them to other blocks. Kenrick was not satisfied with the change and started a new discussion:
Links "edit" at the AP , GP , PT , HIDS, and TA on the main page, I propose modified so "+/-" (like the one in Wikiquote ) · · K ℇ ℵ ℟ ℑ ℭ K 07:19, 24 July 2010 ( UTC)
He is the admin of id.Wikiquote. Wikiquote till this day doesn't have the word "sunting" in the mainpage, but "+/-", yet it has never been an issue there
I agree. Albertus Aditya ( talk ) 07:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There may be misspellings [that need to be edited]. Edits that are only correcting the spelling does not add or subtract anything, ergo, "s" as in the navigation templates is more precise. ✒ βέννγλιν 12:55, 24 Juli 2010 (UTC) ✒ βέννγλιν 12:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I argued that "edit" is not the same as "+/-" per se, citing precedent of id.wiki's templates that uses the letter "s" (the first letter of "sunting", just like "e" for "edit"). It's understood by Wikipedians, and at the same time detract vandals from editing the main page.
The use of "s" as an abbreviation of "sunting" causes ambiguity. Users who just go to Wikipedia it is impossible to know that the "s" stands for "change". [Citation needed] · · K ℇ ℵ ℟ ℑ ℭ K 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Notice he himself didn't really sure that his opinion was correct or not.
[use] Tooltip. ✒ βέννγλιν 10:09, 25 Juli 2010 (UTC) ✒ βέννγλιν 10:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Here I used precedent that will be shown shortly.
Do not be too confident with the tooltip. On the internet slow computer, so the tooltip does not work properly (it doesn't show). Albertus Aditya ( talk ) 12:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's his personal opinion, contrary to his own edits that I would shown him shortly
K ℇ ℵ ℟ ℑ ℭ K likes Albertus Aditya' statement
I showed him how he himself have used tooltip only a month before without the objection that he stated here
If someone do not know what it stands for "s" even after seeing the link, chances are he would also not able to edit protected pages (except the "Did You Know" and "Today In History" pages which should've been merged into one template and protected from anon). ✒ βέννγλιν 05:14, 26 Juli 2010 (UTC) ✒ βέννγλιν 05:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Here, I stated the reason of why "s" would triumph over "+/-" or "sunting"
K ℇ ℵ ℟ ℑ ℭ K not like the statement above because it is difficult to read.
- That edit stood for two months without objection until the RfD was raised by Serenity. And for that two months I would say there was fewer vandals attacking the main page.
- Serenity added an addendum in a page created for different purpose [i.e. the "In the News" block of Main Page]. The whole RfD was rewritten according to Serenity's POV and was one-sided with no effort to make known the reason for the edit. On the closing of the RfD Mimihitam changed the link of "In the News" block. Then his second edit was not based on any consensus, but a generalization). I reverted Mimihitam's loose interpretation, but when the argument to keep Mimihitam's edit prevailed, I listened to them and the main page back to what it was.