Template talk:ACE2013

KW

Joefromrandb said in their edit summary "discussion is in progress; there is currently no consensus that this is prohibited". This is the wrong way round. If there is no consensus for inclusion, the template does not change. So I have reverted this for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was absolutely the right way round, but this being Wikipedia - the land where common sense is not allowed - I'd expect nothing less. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no problem with KW using his talk page for an Arbitration Committee election guide. I know he's banned, but he's been allowed to use his talk page up to this point and I see no reason why not to let him use it for that. It would be inconsistent with how we've been allowing him to use his talk page if we told him he couldn't create a guide on it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guides to other guides are ineligible

Can we please have help navigating to guides to other guides? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being ineligible there is at least one, submitted by Sandy Georgia. All her guide says this year is that she won't be writing one and she recommends a few others. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what is meant by "guides to guides". And that is not all my guide says. The problematic "guides to guides" were guides that summarized and tallied votes by guide. That's not what I've done. I've pointed to three specific guides, on different candidates, to say which I agree with. I will see if I can dig up one of those horrid "guides to guides" from two years ago, to show you one of the problematic ones that are ineligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, but cannot locate a "guide to guides" from years past. They were tables that tabulated other every other guide and then presented an average or total percentage, ranking the candidates by other guides, with no other reasoning. The problem with them is that they implied that a candidate with 85% support from guidewriters was "better" than a candidate with, say 65% which is not only ridiculous, but a ridiculous way to vote. I do not tabulate others' guides, nor do I only recommend others, nor do I even consider most of them, nor do I calculate anything or present a meaningless mathematical summation... I say I agree with certain guides on some candidates, but not generally with any one guide, and specify. If that is viewed as a problem, I guess I'll have to start writing. Beeblebrox are you saying you think my guide is a "guide to guides" and needs to be rewritten? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Sandy a she?! I never realised. Hello Sandy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, this is most disconcerting. I hope Beeblebrox will get back to me, but I am going to be out the rest of the day. If the decision is that my guide isn't sufficiently developed yet, then it will be OK for someone to remove it in my absence, but there are quite a few guides up that aren't written yet, so ... I'm not sure where that leaves any of us. I wish Beeblebrox had contacted me directly, and earlier. I will continue to work on developing more language about each candidate, but I have been hit with student editing and was hoping to work on it little by little (we don't all run out and vote the first day, I hope). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no response from Beeblebrox yet, I have to get on with my day and will be out for a while, I don't have time to rush/brush up my guide in a day, so I am removing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to seem like I was ignoring you, had a real world issue of my own that needed taking care of. I just noticed your guide right before making that post, so that would be why it didn't come up earlier. I realize that your guide was not really the same thing as the previous "guides to guides" but it didn't contain much of anything other than pointers to other guides either. It certainly wasn't my intent to force its removal if you were planning on fleshing it out further in the future, it just looked to me like you were saying you weren't actually going to write a guide this year and the list is already somewhat bloated in my opinion. There are at least two guides that are obviously not intended to be taken seriously. The again we also have candidates who aren't taking this seriously and who are not answering most of the questions asked of them so I suppose it isn't really fair to hold a guide writer to a higher standard than the actual candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]