User:Pmanderson/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deplorable edit

This edit is deplorable; I trust it will not recur. If we are going to have an interim form until consensus, it should either be the day before yesterday's text, or the last undisputed form, from August. (It should also not make an incomplete and inaccurate account of the extent of the dispute.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.158.253.8 reported by User:Pmanderson (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 10:55 Jan 23 2007
1st revert: 23:48 23 January
2nd revert: 09:18 24 January
- New version 09:53 24 Jan
3rd revert: 17:45; adds a phrase
- New version: 20:06
4th revert: 20:15
5th revert 20:36
6th revert 20:46

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:45

Comments:The previous version is itself a reversion, as the edit summary shows; this is only the last 24 hours. Except for the third, which added three words, these are exact reversions; the "new versions" above are in fact almost complete reversions (one did a move; the other readded the same text to a slight revision of my own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q1. Do you support replacing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research with a single policy?

[edit] Yes.

[edit] No.

[edit] Q2: If there is a merge, are Wikipedia:Attribution (and its FAQ proposed as a guideline) adequate replacements of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

[edit] Yes, it is good enough.

[edit] No, it requires significant changes.

[edit] Q3: If these policies aren't replaced, should Wikipedia:Attribution be kept as official policy:

[edit] Yes, it should be kept as official policy together with the current ones.

[edit] Yes, it should be kept as official policy, and the others should be explanations of it.

[edit] No, it should be made historical.

[edit] No, but it could serve as a summary of current policies.

[edit] Do you support Wikipedia:Attribution?

[i.e., Do you believe it can be useful in some form?]

[edit] If the pages are merged should they include:

[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability

[edit] Wikipedia:No original research

[edit] Wikipedia:Reliable sources

[edit] Do you support the merger behind Wikipedia:Attribution?

[edit] Q1. Which of the following do you support?

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased.

[edit] A. The original pages become inactive. Wikipedia:Attribution serves as a unified policy on their subjects.

[edit] B. Wikipedia:Attribution remains as the definitive policy, but the original pages remain active to describe the concepts in greater detail.

[edit] C. The original pages serve as the definitive policies (or guideline in the case of WP:RS), but Wikipedia:Attribution remains active as a condensed summary.

[edit] D. Wikipedia:Attribution becomes inactive. (Parts of it that reflect consensus are integrated into the original pages.)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution proposes that the current Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policy with the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline be merged into a single policy page. Do you: